'^^^^^^' 


1                         Tlie 

i 

rroperty                         i 

;  iiBT 

CBiffllTira  ^ 

■n 

UTai&T7. 

BARTON 

SQUARE,    SALEM. 

DEPOSITED 


—  IN    THR- 


LIBRARY 


-<=-<>F    THK  — 


ESSEX    INSTITUTE. 


'^0 

4 


"i 


A  NEW  CHAIN  OF  PLAIN  ARGUMENT, 


CONCLUSIVE  AGAINST  TRINITARIANISM. 


APDUESSED    TO    A 


Trinitarian   Writer  for  the  Panoplist^ 


IN    A   SERIES   OF 


CantsiD  Setter^. 


BY  THOMAS  WORCESTER,  A,  M. 

I'ASTOR  OF  A  CHT-ncH  IN  saxisbvut,  :;.  ii. 


To  us  there  is  but  one  God  the  Father.     God  is  one.  Paul. 

And  Jesus  answered  him,  the  first  of  all  the  commandments  is,  Hear,  O  Israel ; 
the  Lord  our  God  is  one  Lord.  And  the  scribe  said  unto  iiim,  Well,  Master, 
thou  hast  said  tlie  truth  ';  for  there  is  one  God,  and  there  is  none  other  but 
he.    Jesus  said  that  he  answered  discreetly.  Mark. 


BOSTON : 

PRINTED    BY    JOHN    ELIOJ. 

1817. 


A    WORD    TO    THE    PUBLIC. 

If  a  new  chain  of  sound  conclusive  argument,  stated  in  a 
candid,  interesting  manner,  be  in  fact  contained  in  the  follow- 
ing pages,  then  they  are  not  vmworthy  of  an  attentive  perusal, 
and  of  the  most  serious  consideration.  And  who,  without  a 
patient,  fair  examination  of  the  whole,  can  safely  form  an  opin- 
ion of  the  work,  contrary  to  the  import  of  the  title  page  ?  It  is 
not  meant  that  every  article  in  the  following  series  of  argu- 
ment is  perfectly  new  ;  but,  so  far  as  the  author  has  knowledgCj 
there  is  no  other  publication,  which  bears  any  near  resemblance 
to  what  is  now  before  the  reader. 


CONTENTS. 


Page 

Introductory  Letter         .  .  .  .  .       5 

Letter  U.  On  the  want  of  explicit  divine  testimony  in 
support  of  the  triune  doctrine         .  .  ,  .7 

Letter  IIL  On  the  want  of  any  tradition  among  the 
Jews  in  favour  of  the  doctrine       .  .  .  .9 

Letter  IV.  Containing  an  argument,  arising  from  the 
history  of  the  fourth  century  .  .  .  .11 

Letier  V.  Containing  an  argument,  grounded  on  the 
fact,  that  many  have  not  been  able  to  find  the  doctrine 
in  the  bible  .  .  .  .  .  .15 

Letter  VI.  Containing  an  argument,  grounded  on  the 
fact,  that  many,  who  had  been  educated  Trinitarians, 
have  changed  sides  .  .  .  .  ^  .      18 

Letter  VII.  Containing  arguments  resulting  from  the 
various  explanations  given  by  Trinitarians,  and  from 
their  manner  of  treating  their  opponents  .  .     20 

Letter  VIII.  Containing  an  argument  drawn  from  the 
recorded  worship  of  the  ancient  people  of  God  .     24 

Letter  IX.  On  the  explicit  and  abundant  testimony, 
that  God  is  one  person  .  .  .  .         .     26 

Letter  X.  On  the  want  of  any  good  reason,  why  three 
divine  persons  should  speak,  and  be  addressed  in  the 
singular  number  .  .  .  .  .27 

Letter  XI.  On  the  insuperable  difficulties  respecting 
the  supposed  complex  character  of  Christ  .  .     30 

Letter  XII.  An  attempt  to  shew,  that  nothing  is  gained 
by  ascribing  supreme  divinity  to  our  Lord  .  .     34 

Letter  XIII.  On  the  harmony  of  divine  testimony  with- 
out involving  the  supreme  divinity  of  Christ.  And  the 
conclusion  .  •  .  •  .  .     38 


A  New  Chain  of  Plain  Argument. 


INTRODUCTORY  LETTER. 

Sir, 

AS  the  folldwing  letters  will  first  meet  your  eye  from 
the  press,  you  will  be  apprized  of  the  subject  of  them  as  soon 
as  you  shall  have  read  the  title  page.  May  it  not  then  be  well 
for  you  to  call  to  mind  one  of  the  resolutions  of  the  celebrated 
President  Edwards,  before  you  come  to  any  thing  of  the  nature 
of  argument  in  what  I  shall  offer  for  your  consideration  ?  "  I 
observe,"  says  Mr.  Edwards,  "  that  old  men  seldom  have  any 
advantage  of  new  discoveries,  because  they  are  fixed  in  a  way 
of  thinking  to  t?hich  they  have  long  been  accustomed.  I  re- 
solved, if  ever  I  come  to  years,  that  I  will  be  impartial  to  hear 
the  reasons  of  all  pretended  discoveries,  and  receive  them,  if 
rational,  how  long  so  ever  I  have  been  used  w  a  different  way 
of  thinking."  Happy  it  would  be  for  individuals,  happy  it 
would  be  for  the  church  of  God  and  for  society  at  large,  if  men 
in  every  station  of  influence  would  ever  act  in  strict  conformity 
to  the  foregoing  resolution.  But  Sir,  how  rarely  do  men  act 
as  Mr.  Edwards  saw  that  propriety  and  his  own  advantage  re- 
quired of  him  ?  Do  you  not  at  once  perceive,  that  it  is  not  a 
very  easy  thing  for  one  in  your  situation  to  lay  aside  all  self- 
interest,  prejudice,  and  prepossessions,  so  as  to  consider  duly, 
and  weigh  impartially,  any  arguments,  which  may  be  offered 
against  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ?  After  having  taken,  so 
deep  an  interest  m  the  support  of  such  doctrine,  representing 
any  departure  from  it  as  of  the  most  fatal  tendency,  must  you 
not  have  a  Tcry  uncommon  share  of  self-command  to  "  be  im* 
partial"  in  respect  to  any  reasons,  which  can  be  assigned,  for 
not  believing  that  there  are  three  persons  in  Deity  I  Ought 
you  not  then  to  take  the  more  pains  to  prepare  yourself  to  read 
and  consider  as  your  own  "  advantage,"  even  in  this  case,  ma^ 
require?  For  after  all  the  assurance  you  have  felt  to  the  con- 
trary,  is  it  not,  at  least,  possible  that  a  form  of  words,  not  found 
in  the  bible,  and  which  first  came  into  use  in  a  time  when  the 
minds  of  men  were  greatly  heated  by  controversy,  may  at 
last  be  found  without  any  solid  foundation  ?  And  if  it  be  fiossi- 
ble  that  youj  with  great  numbers  ef  worthy  men,  ip,ay  have  raitf-' 
% 


}udged  in  lliis  case,  then  is  it  not  of  very  considerable  impor- 
tance tliat  you  should  put  yourself  fairly  in  the  way  to  discover 
whether  it  be  not  so  in  fact  ?  You  Will,  I  think,  allow,  that  for 
41  writer  on  religion,  like  yourself,  to  be  in  material  error  in 
respect  to  a  point  so  often  brought  to  view,  and  so  strongly 
urged,  must  be  of  very  evil  tendency.  As  the  work,  to  which 
you  contribute,  has  an  extensive  circulation,  if  it  be  only  fiossi- 
ble  that  you  have  not  truth  on  your  side,  in  the  case  to  which  I 
refer,  then  it  may  be  that  the  minds  of  many,  through  your  in- 
strumentality, are  filled  with  prejudice  and  bitterness  against 
many  pious  and  able  men,  who  are  in  the  way  to  find  accep- 
tance with  God  in  that  day  when  "  the  judgment  shall  sit  and 
the  books  shall  be  opened."  It  7nay  be,  that  your  present  read- 
ers will  communicate  like  error,  like  prejudice,  and  like  bitter- 
ness to  vast  numbers  of  others,  and  they  in  their  turn  may  do 
the  same,  and  so  on  through  successive  generations.  It  may 
be  also  that  through  your  inQucnce,  many,  who  shall  become 
public  teachers,  will  be  prevented  from  becoming  in  the  best 
manner  qualitied  to  carry  the  gospel  in  its  purity  to  Pagan  na- 
tions, and  especially  to  such  Mahometans  and  Jews,  as  have 
insuperable  objections  against  Christianity,  because  its  teachers 
have  inculcated  the  very  doctrine  in  question.  Therefore  it 
may  be,  that  thousands  and  millions  of  lost  men  will,  through 
what  you  have  already  done,  be  prevented  from  coming  into 
the  fold  of  Chiist.  If  such  things  are  merely  possible  should 
you  not  be  excited  to  the  most  serious  and  prayerful  endea- 
vours to  read  with  candor,  and  vvith  due  consideration  what  is 
now  before  you  ? 

It  is  more  than  seven  years  since  the  course  of  providence 
led  me  to  such  inquiry  on  the  subject  in  view,  as  issued  in  a 
decided  conviction,  that  I  had  been  educated  in  great  error  re- 
specting the  unity  of  God  and  the  character  of  our  Lord.  And 
while  it  has  been  my  perpetual  aim  ever  since,  to  keep  my 
mind  open  to  the  light,  and  although  I  have  constantly  endea- 
voured to  pay  due  attention  to  every  appearance  of  argument, 
which  has  been  cast  in  my  way,  yet  I  am  more  and  more  con- 
firmed in  the  opinion,  that  Trinitarianism  is  an  error,  exceed- 
ingly detrimental  to  Christianity. 

Much  as  1  venerate  the  memory  of  many,  who  lived  and  died 
Trinitarians,  and  while  I  have  no  doubt  concerning  the  godly 
sincerity  of  great  numbers  now  living  in  the  same  profession, 
it  is  nevertheless  evident  to  my  mind,  that  it  would  be  of  un- 
speakable advantage  to  have  all  such  triune  words  and  forms,  as 
are  not  found  in  the  bible,  entirely  given  up.  This  appears  of 
the  more  importance  at  this  time  because  such  great  and  very 
commendable  efforts  are  making  to  diffuse  the  precious  light 
and  the  unspeakable  blessings  of  Christianity  through  the 
-world.     While  my  heart  rejoices  in  the  animating  prospects  of 


the  present  day,  it  seems  to  me  of  inexpressible  consequence-^ 
that  the  many,  who  shall  go  abroad  in  various  directions  to 
publish  salvaiion,  should  be  prepared  to  preach  the  cverlastinj*- 
i;^ospel  in  its  firimithfe  purity,  without  carrying  with  them  any 
such  words  of  "  man's  wisdom"  as  lamentable  contioversy  has 
long  continued  in  common  use.  And  can  you.  Sir,  deny  that 
this  is  very  desirable  ?  Yet  have  you  not  done  much  of  a  very 
contrary  tendency  ?  Is  not  the  manner,  in  which  this  subject, 
particularly,  has  been  treated  in  the  Panoplist,  highly  calculated 
to  make  its  readers  think,  that  every  gospel  minister  must 
boldly  declare,  that  there  are  three  coequal  persons  in  one  God, 
instead  of  teaching  in  the  language  of  the  first  ministers  of 
Christ  that  "  there  is  one  God  and  one  Mediator  between  God 
and  men,  the  man  Christ  Jesus" — ."the  only  begotten  Son  of 
God"  "  unto  whom  is  given  the  Spirit  without  measure"  and 
through  whom  "  our  Father,  who  is  in  Heaven,  will  give  his 
Holy  Spirit  to  them  that  ask  him  V  Suppose,  Sir,  that  after  all 
you  have  said  and  done,  you  should,  before  you  leave  this 
world,  see  cause  to  give  up  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  as  the 
excellent  Dr.  Watts  did,  in  his  last  duyti,  how  must  you  then 
feel  in  respect  to  the  influence  such  things  as  you  have  pub- 
lished have  had  ?  What,  in  that  case,  must  be  your  sensation 
in  respect  to  the  feelings,  language,  and  conduct  you  have  ex- 
cited against  men,  who  will  then  be  found  to  have  suffered, 
not  a  little,  for  the  truth's  sake  ?  And  should  such  a  time  ever 
come,  can  it  come  too  soon  ?  For  must  you  not  then  very  ear- 
nestly wish  to  have  an  opportunity  to  do  something  towards 
correcting,  and  counteracting  what  will  appear  to  have  been 
so  much  amiss  ?  Can  it  then  be  too  soon  for  you  to  pay  the 
most  serious  and  unbiassed  attention  to  some  of  the  many 
things,  which  have  to  others  appeared  as  weighty  reasons  why 
they  should  expose  themselves  to  whatever  might  be  the  con- 
sequences in  this  misjudging  world,  rather  than  to  appear  any 
longer  on  the  side  of  Trinitarians  ?  Sensible  that  it  is  no  less 
required  of  me  to  write,  than  of  you  to  read,  in  the  constant 
exercise  of  christian  meekness  and  humility,  it  is  my  earnest 
desire,  and  prayer  to  God,  that,  whatever  deficiency  shall  bo 
found  in  any  other  respect,  there  may  be  no  appearance  in  all 
I  have  to  say,  of  any  such  spirit,  as  the  most  humble  disciple- 
at  the  feet  of  Jesus  would  deem  contrary  to  the  nature  of  "  that 
wisdom)  which  is  from  above." 

LETTER  II. 

On  the  want  of  explicit  divine  testimony  in  support  of  the  docU'in«. 

Sir, 

The  first  thing,  which  I  shall  bring  to  view  as  a  weigh- 
ty consideration  against  the  Trinitariaji  theory,  is  the  want  of. 


8 

explicit  and  abundant  testimony  in  favour  of  it  in  the  sacred 
■writings.  WJicn  controversy  is  out  of  mind,  is  it  not  readily 
and  universally  admitted,  that  the  most  important  articles  in  the 
system  of  eternal  truth  arc  most  clearly  and  indisputably  stated 
in  the  Bible  ?  Hut  Sir,  while  you  evidently  consider  tbc  doc- 
trine of  three  coequal  persons  in  one  God  as  a  fundamcnial  ar- 
ticle of  revealed  religion,  you  have  never  been  able  to  ])oint  to 
a  single  sacred  text  of  any  such  ex/iUcit  mcanir.g.  Nor  can 
this  be  done  by  any  other  man  living  ;  for  it  is  undeniable  that 
if  the  doctrine  be  found  in  the  Bible  at  all,  it  is  found  only  by 
Way  of  inference,  from  here  and  there  a  word  or  sentence,  or 
part  of  a  sentence  of  ambiguous  or  doubtful  signification. 
While  this  must  be  admitted  as  a  serious  fact,  ho.v  is  it  to  bo 
accounted  for,  on  your  ground,  in  a  satisfactory  manner  ?  You 
•will  not  say  that  the  doctrine  you  contend  for  was  not  as  true  and 
as  important  from  the  beginning  as  it  is  now.  Why  then  is  it  not 
clearly  found  in  every  part  of  the  Bible  ?  Why  is  it  not,  by  di- 
vine testimony,  made  as  clearly  and  abundantly  <nli.Ient,  that  God 
Is  three  persons,  as  it  is  that  there  is  one,  and  but  one  si.prcTuc 
God  ?  Do  you  not  suppose  that  all  the  inspired  writers  nad 
as  pure  faith  concerning  the  most  high  God  as  yourself? 
Why  then  were  they  not  as  careful  as  you  are  to  state  the  doc- 
trine in  a  plain  unequivocal  manner?  In  particular,  how  can 
you  account  for  it  that  Jehovah  did  not,  at  Mounl  Sinai,  make 
himself  clearly  known  as  a  "  triune  God  "  When  he  was  giving 
a  law,  which  was  to  be  a  perpetual  directory  to  mankind  \n  re- 
spect to  that  worship  and  service,  which  he  requires,  why  did 
he  say  "  Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  before  ME,"  thus  using 
the  singular  number  without  any  intimation  that  it  should  not 
be  understood  in  t/iis,  as  in  every  other  case  ?  Does  it  not  ap- 
pear as  though  the  nature  of  the  case  required  a  most  explicit 
statement  of  your  all  important  doctrine,  when  Jehovah  was 
giving  a  law  of  the  most  universal  and  perpetual  obligation? 
And  does  it  not  seem  incredible,  that  a  God  existing  in  three 
coequal  persons  should,  on  that  momentous  occasion,  speak, 
as  if  he  were  in  fact  but  one  ])erson  ? 

Moreover,  if  your  doctrine  be  true,  and  as  important  as  you 
suppose,  v/hy  did  not  our  Lord,  who  came  to  bear  witness  to  the 
trutii,  state  the  same  doctrine  in  words,  which  would  need  no 
amendment,  and  keep  it  constantly  in  view  in  all  his  public  min- 
istry ?  At  least,  instead  of  speaking  of  his  Father  as  "the  only 
true  God"  and  saying  "the  true  worshippers  shall  worship  the 
Father"  why  did  he  not  so  much  as  once  on  some  occasion,  ex- 
press clearly  and  unequivocally  what  yoii  think  we  should  be- 
lieve concerning  God  ?  In  short,  does  it  not  seem  very  unucf 
countable  th^t  neither  Moses,  nor  any  other  ancient  prophet, 
nor  our  Lord,  nor  any  one  of  his  apostles,  has  so  much  as  once 
expressly  stated   a  doctrine  which,  as  you    suppose,  lies  at  the 


very  fonnclution  of  Christianity,  and  is  of  such  vast  importance 
that  those  who  deny  it,  cannot  l^e  consistently  treated  as  true 
worshippers  of  the  true  God? 

Truly,  Sir,  it  does  not  appear  to  me  so  unreasonable  to  think 
that  all  the  threat  and  good  men,  Avho  have  advocated  the  doc- 
trine in  view,  have  been  under  a  very  great  mistake  in  this  mat- 
ter, as  it  does  to  suppose  that  there  is  a  revealed  doctrine  of 
such  a  nature,  and  of  such  unspeakable  importance  that  wc 
might  naturally  expect  to  find  it  on  the  very  face  of  every  part 
of  divine  testimony,  while  in  fact  it  is  found,  if  found  at  all,  only 
hy  way  of  inference  from  incidental  hints,  now  and  then  given 
in  the  sacred  volume.  And  in  view  of  what  is  now  before  you,* 
is  there  not  some  reason  for  you  to  apprehend,  that  you  and  ma- 
ny others  have  greatly  misunderstood,  ajid  misapplied  such  pas- 
sages of  scripture  as  you  rest  upon  in  respect  to  the  Trinita-^ 
rian  theory  ? 


LETTER  III. 

Dii  the  w:int  of  any  tradition  amoiig  the  Jews  in  favour  of  ll;c  dnctrine. 
SiU, 

The  next  thing  I  have  to  mention  is,  that  among  the  Jews, 
•\v])o  adhere  to  the  v/riiings  of  Moses  and  the  Prophets,  there  is 
no  tradition  or  belief  in  favour  of  the  opinion,  that  God  is  t'lrce 
persons.  You  will  not,  I  conclude,  deny  that  the  God  of 
Abraham  is  the  true  God.  I  suppose  you  will  likewise  admit 
that  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob,  and  all  their  pious  offspring 
through  successive  generations,  were  true  worshippers  of  the 
true  God  Consequently  so  far  as  I  can  see,  you  must  sup- 
ix)se  that  Abraham  and  all  his  ancient  believing  offspring  were 
Trinitarians,  constantly  worshipping  "  the  Father,  the  Son,  and 
the  Holy  Ghost"  as  you  and  others  do  at  the  present  time. 
Although  you  cannot  find  any  such  example  of  triune  worship 
in  the  bible,  yet  as  you  cannot  deny,  that  those  ancient  saints 
were  true  worshippers  of  the  true  God,  and  as  you  evidently 
hold,  that  what  a  late  writer  on  your  side  has  called  "the  soli- 
tary Deity  of  Unitarians,"*  is  not  the  true  God,  so  far  as  I  can 
see,  it  must  conclusively  follow  that  you  consider  the  Father  of 
the  faithful,  and  all  who  walked  in  his  steps,  as  having  been  be- 
lievers in,  and  worshippers  of  a  "  three-one  God  "  Yes,  and 
to  be  consistent  withyourself,  must  you  not  suppose,  that  the  doc- 
trine in  question  was  a  very  material  article  of  Abraham's  creed, 

*  See  a  late  able  publication  entitled  "  a  candid  and  conciliatory  review  of  the 
late  correspondence  of  ilie  Ucv.  Dr.  W.  wiili  the  Ituv.  \V.  E.  C  on  the  subject  of 
Unilarianism.  Kv  a  serious  enquirer."  Vu'^c  \i.  To  this  valuable  work,  written 
in  a  spirit,  well  worthy  f.f  imitation,  the  reader  is  referred  for  what  h  deeraed  a 
conclu.sive  aa^swcr  to  sorni;  Trinitarii«o  arguments  not  so  much  noticed  in  these 
Letters. 


10 

such  as  he  should  not  fail  to  teach  his  children,  in  the  most  ex- 
plicit and  urgent  manner,  and  such  as  his  believing  childreu 
could  not  fail  to  inculcate  through  all  thcLr  generations  ?  1Io\t 
then  has  it  happened,  that  this  doctrine  is  utterly  unknown  to 
the  Jews  of  these  days  ;  except  that  some  have  knowledge  of  it 
es,  in  their  view,  a  gieat  christian  error  ?  That  the  Jews  do  now 
deny  the  doctrine,  and  that  they  have  done  the  same  tor  many- 
centuries,  is  a  fact  too  notorious  to  be  denied  And  is  it  possi- 
ble for  you  to  account  for  it  in  any  rational  way  consistent  with 
your  own  creed  ?  If  Abraham,  Moses,  David,  Daniel  and  other 
Fathers  and  Teachers  of  the  Jewish  nation  were  in  fact  believ- 
ers in,  and  worshippers  of  a  "  three-one  God,"  why  have  the 
Jews  of  latter  ages  so  universally,  and  so  strenuously  denied 
the  same  doctrine  ?  Why  have  they  so  uniformly  insisted,  that 
no  such  doctrine  was  ever  inculcated  by  any  of  their  ancient 
Teachers,  and  that  no  such  sentiment  is  found  in  any  of  their 
ancient  records  ?  If  it  ever  was  an  article  of  faith  in  the  Jewish 
Church,  how  did  it  all  at  once  become  extinct  so  as  to  be  now 
wholly  unknown  to  the  Jews  ?  Or  if  Abraham  and  all  his  believ- 
ing successors  had  been  Trinitarians  like  yourself,  would  it  not 
have  been  impossible,  that  the  knowledge  of  this  should  have 
been  utterly  lost  to  all  the  Jews  from  the  days  of  the  Apostles 
to  the  present  time  ?  Or  is  it  possible  tiiat  a  fact  so  notorious, 
as  that  now  in  question  must  have  been,  could  be  denied  by  all 
that  people  in  the  various  places  where  we  have  any  knowledge 
of  them  ? 

But  it  is  further  to  be  considered  that,  as  you  and  all  Trinita- 
rians suppose,  your  doctrine  is  found  in  the  Old  Testament,  to 
which  the  Jews  exclusively  adhere  as  the  rule  of  their  faith. 
This  Testament,  which  they  hold  very  sacred,  was  written  orig- 
inally in  their  own  language.  What  then  can  be  the  reason  why 
no  Old  Testament  Jew,  has  been  found  a  believer  in  the  doctrine 
for  which  you  contend  I  Are  not  learned  Jews  as  capable  of  un- 
derstanding Hebrew  words  as  yourself  or  any  other  learned 
man  ?  And  what  peculiar  temptation  would  any  Jew  be  under 
to  mislead  him  in  respect  to  what  the  scriptures  testify  of  Jeho- 
vah ?  Or  if  it  be  the  true  import  of  any  word  or  words  used  in 
the  Old  Testament,  that  Jehovah  is  more  than  one  person,  what 
peculiar  temptation  can  any  Jew  be  under  to  deny  the  fact  ? 
Why  then  do  all  the  Jews,  so  far  as  we  have  knowledge, 
contend  so  earnestly  for  the  unity  of  God  as  one,  and  but  one 
person  ?  Is  there  not  some  reason  to  believe,  that  in  this  they 
are  supported  by  the  true  meaning  of  their  scriptures,  and  by 
the  well  known  faith  and  worship  of  all  their  pious  ancestors  ? 


11 


LETTER  IV. 

Containing  an  argument  arising  from  the  history  of  the  fourth  century'. 

Sir, 

Permit  me  now  to  call  your  attention  to  some  of  the  in- 
formation, wliich  ecclesiastical  history  gives  us  concerning  the 
state  of  things  in  the  fourth  century  of  the  christian  era.  hi  the 
history  of  that  period,  as  written  by  Trinitarians,  it  appears  to 
me  there  is  much  evidence,  that  the  doctrine  in  question  was 
unknown  in  the  christian  church  until  some  time  after  the  com- 
mencement of  the  lamentable  controversy  between  Alexander 
and  Arius,  respecting  the  character  of  our  Lord.  To  settle  the 
point  in  dispute  the  great  council  at  Nice  was  called  in  the 
year  three  hundred  and  twenty-five.  And  it  does  not  appear, 
that  in  all  that  numerous  council,  there  was  one  man,  who  was 
then  prepared  to  advocate,  or  to  advance  any  thing  like  the  sen- 
timent of  three  coequal  persons  in  Deity.  As  to  the  point  then 
in  dispute,  a  majority  of  the  council  determined  against 
the  Arians  "  that  the  Son  was  peculiarly  of  the  Father,  being  of 
his  substance,  as  begotten  of  him."*  Further  than  this,  it 
seems  that  council  was  not  prepared  to  go.  And  how  is  this 
to  be  accounted  for  ?  For  do  you  not  suppose,  that  all  the  apos- 
tles of  our  Lord,  and  all  the  ciders,  by  them  ordained  in  every 
church,  were  like  those,  who  at  this  day  say,  "  We  worship  the 
Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  ?"  I3o  you  not  suppose 
that  none  of  those  first  ministers  of  the  New  Testament  could 
fdil  of  inculcating  such  doctrine  and  worship  in  the  most  ur- 
gent manner  ?  How  then  could  it  so  soon  come  to  pass,  that  ill 
a  council,  containing  several  hundreds  of  bishops  and  presby- 
ters, there  was  not  one  man  ready  to  appear  in  character  as  a 
Trinitarian  ?  As  we  can  now  look  back  several  centuries  and 
say  with  confidence,  that  Calvin  and  others  of  his  time  were 
Trinitarians,  likewise,  if  it  had  been  a  reality  that  the  apostles 
had  explicitly  taught  and  worshipped  as  Trinitarians  do  now, 
must  it  not  have  been  known  to  the  inembers  of  the  Nicene 
council  ?  And  in  that  case  would  they  have  stopped  so  much 
short  of  what  was  done  by  another  council  more  than  fifty  years 
later  ?  Besides,  have  you  not  seen  in  the  light  of  history,  that. 
the  opinions  of  Athanasius  were  at  first,  and  for  a  considerable 
time,  withstood  as  great  and  dangerous  innovations  by  the  gen- 
eral voice  of  those,  who  were  set  for  the  defence  of  the  gos- 
pel ?  Have  you  not  seen  that  after  Athanasius  had  been  twice  de- 
posed for  his  errors  and  his  vices,  by  large  councils,  one  in  Tyre; 
and  the  other  at  Antioch,  he  appealed  to  the  aspiring  bishop  of 
Rome,  who  on  being  thus  flattered,  called  such  ft  select  council, 

•  Mil.  Chh.  Hist.  Vol.  II.  p.  70. 


12 

as  set  up  the  doctrine  of  Athaniisius,  and  at  the  same  time  ac* 
knowlcdged  tlie  bishop  of  Rome,  as  one  having  authority  to  re- 
ceive appeals  from  every  part  of  the  christian  v/orld  II  And 
have  you  not  seen,  that  Avhen  the  Trinitarian  cause  and  the  po- 
pish interest  had  become  thus  united,  it  became  more  and  more 
unpopular  and  unsafe  for  any  one  to  appear  in  opposition  to  the 
Athanasian  innovations,  in  proportion  as  the  bishop,  or  pope  of 
Rome  advanced  in  power  and  influence  ?*  Yet  have  you  not  seen 
that  many  of  the  clergy  continued  to  raise  their  voices  against 
what  they  considered  gr.eat  error,  and  that  many  large  councils 
condemned  the  opinions  of  Athanasius  as  without  any  scripture 

*  See  a  vork  woriliy  of  tlie  most  farcfii!  altention,  entitled  "  An  attcmijt  to 
explain  ilie  words  rcaso'i,  person,  ^ubstaiici-,  isc.  h\  a  presljyter  of  the  cliuicl)  r<f 
Entjiaiui."  'I'lic  folloui.i^  (juotalioii,  ending  i>X  tlie  'iOtli  I'age,  is  verbaliin. 
"  AtliH'iasius  now  firidiiig  his  casu  liopetess,  (leprived  of  his  bishoiiric,  and  anoth- 
er in  possession  of  it,  formed  a  most  dcsjierale  resolution,  uinvoriny  of  a  chrisiiuii 
bissliop,  and  uhich  hath  had  the  most  fatal  cnusefjueiices.  lie  appealed  from  tho 
coiinei!  of  Anlioih  and  the  emperor  to  Julius,  ijishup  of  iJomc — fled  to  that  city 
and  put  himself  under  the  protection  of  that  prelate.  Julius  himself,  delighted 
■with  this  event,  as  it  was  an  acknowledgement  that  his  jurisdieiion  is  above  all 
orliers,  most  gladly  received  him  anrl  his  api)eal.  Atid  lliis  laid  the  foundation  of 
tlie  papal  supremacy,  ui)on  whicli  hath  been  built  such  a  superstructure  of  do- 
minion, of  doctrine  and  worship,  as  halli  astonished  the  world  ever  since.  Now 
Athanasius  was  highly  caressed  and  dignified  with  the  title  of  saint.  His  opinions 
must  be  defended  to  give  the  better  prete.\,t  for  defending  his  person."  The  fol- 
lowing gloomy  account  is  extracted  from  the  same  author,  beginning  at  the  84th 
page.  "In  the  year  .SOT  Liberitis,  bishop  of  Home,  died.  He  had  in  the  former 
part  of  his  time,  imitated  his  predeceasoi-  Jidius  in  su],>port>ng  Athanasius  and  liia 
tenets  :  but  at  last  he  became  one  of  those  who  subscribed  his  coiidemtialion. 
There  was  one  Damasas,  a  clergyman  of  Rome,  whom  Liberius  i;ad  fnade  his 
vicar,  and  given  him  several  preferments.  Upon  the  flealh  of  Liberius,  Damasus 
and  Ursicinus,  another  of  the  Roiuan  presbyteis,  were  competitors  for  the  suc- 
cession ;  and  they  were  both  chosen  bishop  of  liome  by  their  diflerent  pai-ties. 
This  occasioned  dreadful  tumults.  (Damasus  in  one  of  these,  at  the  head  of  his 
partizans,  beset  the  church  of  Liberius,  where  were  many  of  Ursicinus'  party  as- 
sembled ;  set  fire  to  it  and  burned  anil  killed  an  hundred  and  sixty  i)ersoiis  ) 
Each  supported  his  claim  by  violence  and  force.  But  Dainasus  vas  either  the 
riKiSt  jjowerful  or  the  most  cunning;  for  after  much  blood  had  been  shed,  Ursici- 
nus and  his  party  were  driven  out  of  the  city.  When  Uamasus  was  ilius  left  in 
possession  of  his  dignity,  he  called  a  council  at  Home,  and  the  fu'st  thing  he  did  in 
it,  vas  to  have  Iiis  predecessor  and  benefactcr,  in  all  probability  then  in  heaven. 
Censured  and  coiidei..ined  as  a  heretic  for  acting  against  tiie  saint  Athanasius.  Da- 
masus was  too  sagacious  not  to  perceive,  tlial  the  grandeur  of  himself  and  his  sec 
depeiuled  upon  his  supporting  the  man,  who  had  done  more  to  aggrandize 
the  bishopric  of  Home  than  any  person  before  liad  attempted  ;  and  therefore  he 
strictly  united  himiclf  to  Atiianasius.  And  no  two  were  ever  more  like  one 
another.  Both  were  guilty  of  the  most  turbident  and  violent  actions  ;  both  were 
pu!)licly  accused  of  the  grossest  crimes.  Both  supported  their  titles  to  their 
bishoprics,  against  Uicir  competitors,  by  the  most  outrageous  tumults,  massacres,, 
and  murders.  Both  of  theoi  were  unnoticed  tVir  any  good  actions  in  their  lives. 
Unless  their  furious  zeal  against  their  t'elloiv  christians  whom  they  called  heretics 
may  be  so  called.  Both  of  them  were  dignified  with  the  title  of  SAINT — for 
doing  the  greatest  prejudice  to  Christianity.  And  both  of  lliem  now  united  in  the 
support  of  Homoousi.in  doctrine,  and  all  the  conseiiueiices  which  Athanasius  and 
l)is  adherents  had  diawn  from  it.  Now  the  grand  struggle  was  between  the 
Athaivasians  and  Arii.ns  known  uiuler  various  names. —  After  the  Nicene  council, 
when  the  contending  parties  had  worn  themselves  out  in  the  most  refined  disputes 
concerning  tlie  divinity  of  ikc  Sou  of  God,  they  tlieu  began  to  argue  concerning 
that  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 


foundation  ?  But  you  will  suy,  a  very  great  council  at  Constan- 
tinople, which  continued  three  years,  beginning  A.  D.  381,  ap- 
proved and  established  the  doctrine  of  Athanasius  as  orthodox. 
Yes,  Sir,  as  Di\  Moshiem  says,  "An  hundred  and  fifty  bishops, 
who  were  present  at  this  council,  gave  the  finishing  touch  to 
what  the  council  of  Nice  had  left  imperfect,  and  fixed  in  a  full 
and  determinate  manner  the.  doctrine  of  three  persons  in  one 
God,"*  Mr.  Milner  also  says  "This  council  very  accurately 
defined  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity."  Yet  with  all  his  Trinita- 
rian zeal,  Mr.  Milner  is  constrained  to  say  of  the  same  council, 
"  It  was  very  confused  and  disorderly,  greatly  inferior  in  piety 
and  wisdom  to  that  of  Nice. — Faction  was  high  and  charity  was 
low  at  this  time."t  Thus  does  the  most  zealous  Trinitarian 
liistorian  speak  of  that  council,  which,  as  he  thinks,  "  very  ac- 
curately defined  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity."  But,  Sir,  if  this 
council  had  been  equal  "in  piety  and  wisdom  to  the  council  of 
Nice,"  is  it  certain  that  "  the  doctrine  of  three  persons  in  one 
God"  would  have  been  "  fixed  in  a  full  and  determinate  man- 
ner," as  it  was  at  that  time  ?  It  was  now  more  than  fifty  years 
since  the  commencement  of  the  deplorable  controversy  respect- 
ing the  churacier  of  Christ,  In  all  this  time  there  was,  as  you 
will  not  deny,  a  rapid  decline  of  pure  and  undefiled  religion  ; 
and  a  very  great  increase  of  such  error,  pride  and  arrogance, 
as  brought  on  the  loiig  and  dreadful  night  of  popish  darkness  ] 
And  no  man,  well  acquainted  with  the  history  of  the  church 
during  that  period,  can  deny,  that  the  progress  of  Athanasian 
Trinitarianism  was,  in  a  great  degree,  proportionate  to  the  de- 
cline of  godiincss,  and  to  the  rise  of  "  the  man  of  sin.''     As  the 

•  Ecc.  Hist.  Vol.  I.  p.  14G. 

-j-  Cli.  Hist.  Vol.  n.  p.  184.  The  same  author,  from  whose  voik  the  foregoing; 
long  note  was  taken,  speaking  of  the  council  of  Constantinople,  says,"  Tlieodo- 
sius  co:ilinued  the  council  three  years.  Nectarius  presided  the  second  year  in  the 
synod,  to  which  they  invited  Naziauzen,  whom  they  had  deposed  the  year  before. 
But  he  refused  to  go  to  this  or  any  other  syn  jclica!  assembly,  and  told  tliem  in  his 
letter,  tliat  '  experience  had  taiu';hi  him  how  little  good  was  to  be  expected  from 
synodi,  which  usually  more  widen  than  heal  up  differences;  where  generally  they 
clash  and  quarrel,  wraii;;le  and  make  a  noise,  more  like  a  flock  of  geese  and  cranes, 
than  an  assembly  of  grave  and  wise  prelates.  At  such  meetings,  he  says,  strife 
and  contention,  pride  atid  ambition,  commonly  bear  the  greatest  sway  ;  and  the 
man  who  goes  there  as  judge,  should  sooner  corrupt  himself  than  correct  and  re- 
form others — that  for  these  reasons  he  had  retired  within  himself,  and  thought  the 
only  means  of  security  was  to  live  in  ]>rivacy  and  solitude.*  The  next  year,  3S,3, 
Theedosius  resolving  to  have  a  creed  7nacle  that  all  should  comply  with,  did  what 
he  could  to  mollify  and  sweeten  the  several  parties.  He  received  them  all  with, 
the  fondest  caresses,  conniving  at  the  exercise  of  their  several  worships.  But  the 
Athanasian  bishops  were  greatly  oftended  at  this  toleration,  and  insisted  that  the 
Arians  might  be  suppressed  and  banished  the  city.  This  the  emperor  found 
himself  obliged  to  comply  with. — Now  it  was  that  the  Athanasians,  finding  them- 
selves more  numerous  than  their  opposers,  set  themselves  to  form  a  new  creed  : 
And  out  of  the  old  forms  of  Jerusalem  and  Nice,  they  made  another  at  Constan* 
tinople,  which  is  the  very  creed  we  have  in  our  liturgy,  one  article  only  excepted, 
ooncerning  th?  procession  of  the  Holy  Spirit."    p.  9^. 


14 

minds  of  the  clergy  and  others  became  more  and  more  "cor- 
rupted from  the  simplicity  that  is  in  Christ,"  they  became 
more  and  more  ready  to  sanction,  or  at  least  to  tolerate  the  tri- 
une "words  of  man's  wisdom,"  used  iu  articles  of  faith  and  in 
forms  of  worship. 

It  should  however  be  noted,  that  even  in  the  council  of  Con- 
stantinople, there  was  a  large  minority  of  dissenters,  and  that 
great  numbers,  about  that  time  and  afterwaros,  exposed  tliem- 
selves  to  the  most  violent  persecutions,  by  refusing  to  sub- 
scribe the  triune  article  of  fnith,  and  by  bearing  testimony  a- 
gainst  such  doctrine  and  worship. 

Now  Sir,  in  view  of  these  things,  is  it  possible  for  you  to 
think  that  the  doctrine,  about  which  there  was  so  much  conten- 
tion, was  no  innovation  ?  At  a  time  so  near  the  apostolic  age, 
was  it  possible,  that  there  could  be  among  christians  very  vio- 
lent contention  of  long  continuance,  in  respect  to  any  material 
point,  which  the  first  christians  at  large  had  received  from  the 
apostles  of  our  Lord  ?  Can  you  believe,  that  all,  wJio  attended 
on  the  ministry  of  the  apostles,  heard  them  teach  as  Trinita- 
rians now  tcaclr,  and  heard  them  worship  as  Trinitarians  now 
worship,  and  yet  believe  that  the  self  same  doctrine  and  man- 
ner of  woi  ship,  excited  very  general  alarm,  and  occasioned  very 
warm  contention  throughout  the  christian  world,  within  less 
than  thi'ce  hundred  years  after  the  ministry  of  the  apostles  was 
ended  ?  Or,  in  other  words,  is  it  not  made  clearly  evident  to  your 
own  mind,  that,  as  to  the  great  point  in  question,  the  inspired 
apostles  and  primitive  christians  did  not  teach  and  worship  as 
Trinitarians  do  at  this  day  ?  In  short,  as  to  this  serious  fact,  we 
have  the  explicit  testimony  both  of  Mr.  Miiner  and  Dr.  Mo- 
shiem  against  you.  The  former  says  expressly,  that  "  Flavian"  of 
the  fourth  century  "  was  the  first  who  hivented  the  doxology, 
"  Glory  be  to  the  Father,  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost."  And  the 
other  liistorian  says,  "  In  earlier  periods  of  the  church  the  wor- 
ship of  Christians  was  confined  to  the  one  supreme  God  and  his 
Son  Jesus  Chriot."* 

P.  S.  In  connexion  with  the  argument  contained  in  the  fore- 
going letter,  it  ought  to  be  considered  that  the  doctrine  in  ques- 
tion cannot,  with  any  propriety,  be  viewed  as  a  doctrine  of  the 
reformation.  Often  and  confidently  as  it  has  been  thus  called, 
who  can  assign  any  good  reason  for  it  ?  For  who  does  not  know 
that  the  triune  article  of  faith  as  "  fixed  "  by  the  "  confused  and 
^itjrdcrly"  council  of  Constantinople,  has  ever  since  been 
deemed  a  cardinal  point  in  the  creed  of  the  church  of  Rome  I 
What  then  Avas  done  by  Luther  and  his  coadjutors  in  regard  to 
this  matter  I  Certainly  they  did  not  originate  an  article  of  faith 
which  had  existed  nearly  a  thousand  years  before  their  time  ; 

'  Ch.  Hist.  Vol.  II.  p.  9J.    Ecc.  Hist.  Vol.  H.  p.  179. 


15 

nor  did  they  revive  the  use  of  that  article,  for  the  use  of  it  nev- 
er had  been  discontinued.  Therefore  it  is  only  true,  that  the 
reformers  had  no  contention  with  the  church  of  Rome  on  this 
particular  point.  As  they  had  been  Trinitarians  while  of  that 
church,  so  they  continued  to  be  when  Protestants.  Nor  is  it  at 
all  strange  that  they  did  not  perceive  at  once,  and  in  every  par- 
ticular, how  far  the  papal  church  had  wandered  from  the  way  o( 
truth.  It  is  rather  wonderful  tliat  they,  in  so  short  a  time,  ef- 
fected so  much  as  they  did  by  way  of  rcformalion.  But  if  I  do 
not  mistake,  it  is  somewhere  said  of  ths  mild  Mckincthon,  that 
he  perceived  in  the  triune  article  of  faith  so  mvich  departure 
from  the  simplicity  of  divine  testimony,  that  he  wept  in  view  of 
the  controversy  it  must  at  some  time  occasion  among  the  Pro- 
testants. 

LETTER  V. 

Containing  an   argument,  grounded  on  (lie  f:;(i,  l!iat  many  have  not  been  able  to 
find  tlie  doctrine  ia  tiic  bibie. 

Sir, 

I  WOULD  now  lead  you  to  consider,  that  although  for 
many  centuries  all  have  been  under  strong  inducements  to  re- 
ceive the  doctrine  in  question,  yet  there  ever  have  been  many, 
who  have  not  been  able  to  find  it  in  the  bible.  You,  Sir,  have  too 
much  information  to  deny,  that  very  powerful  secular  induce- 
ments have  long  been  on  the  side  of  Tiinitarians,  nearly  all  over 
the  christian  world.  Even  since  the  days  of  more  violent  per- 
secution were  ended,  men  of  any  distinction  have  had  much  to 
forego,  and  not  a  little  to  suffer,  if  they  could  not  be,  or  at  least 
profess  to  be^  Tiinitarians.  Without  such  profession,  in  what 
christian  kingdom  have  men  stood  fair  for  any  considerable 
promotion,  either  in  church  or  state  ?  Besides,  who  would  not 
wish  to  avoid  stich  censures,  privations,  reproaches,  abuses  and 
anathemas,  as  have  constantly  fallen  on  men  of  any  note,  who 
could  not  do  otherwise  than  dissent  from  the  triune  faith  ?  Tru- 
ly, Sir,  in  view  of  these  things,  and  considering  what  human 
nature  is,  and  how  much  there  is  of  imperfection  even  in  good 
men,  it  is  easy  to  see  why  Trinitarianism  is  so  generally  pro- 
fessed, whether  there  be  in  fact  much,  or  little,  or  nothing  in 
the  bible  to  support  it  or  not.  You  know  Sir,  how  natural  it  is 
for  men,  who  are  educated  Mahometans  to  continue  in  that 
faith  ;  and  how  natural  it  is  for  those,  who  are  educated  in  the 
church  of  Rome,  to  continue  in  the  errors  of  that  church.  You 
likewise  know,  how  natural  it  is  for  those,  who  were  educated 
in  the  church  of  England  faith,  to  adhere  to  the  articles  and 
forms  of  episcopacy.  Besides,  you  are  not  ignorant  of  the  fact, 
that  the  more  any  sect  of  christians  become  interested  in  the 
support  of  any  particular  sentiment,  the  more  easy  it  is  for  them 
to  construe  much  of  divine  testimony  in  favour  of  that  senti- 


16 

ment,  even  when  in  fcicl  tlicrc  is  not  in  the  whole  bible  an  ioU 
of  solid  foundation,  on  which  they  can  rest.  And  can  you  do 
otherwise  than  admit  that  there  is  no  one  sentiment,  in  the  sup- 
port of  which  any  sect  of  christians  are  more  interested  than 
Trinitarians  are  in  the  support  of  the  doctrine  now  in  view  ?  Is 
it  not  then  very  possible,  that  after  all  they  have  said  and  done, 
it  may  be  found  that  there  is  not  a  sinj^le  text  in  the  bible  real- 
ly on  their  side  ?  But  while  it  is  so  easy  to  account  for  the  long 
and  general  prevalence  of  Trinitarianism,  whether  it  has  really 
any  scripture  foundation  or  not,  how  are  we  to  account  for  the 
dissent  of  not  a  very  few  in  every  age  ?  When  it  has  been,  in 
every  considerable  part,  and  in  almoK^  every  corner  of  Christen- 
dom, so  much  for  the  interest  of  all  men  to  subscribe  to  the 
triune  article  of  faith,  why  have  considerable  numbers  chosen 
rather  to  expose  themselves  to  censure,  reproach,  and  no  in- 
considerable privations,  I)y  a  difiTerent  profession  ?  Would  they 
have  done  this  if  they  could  have  found  satisfactory  evidence  of 
the  truth  of  such  doctrine  ?  And  when  there  was  so  much  to 
induce  them  to  it,  why  could  they  not  find  such  evidence  in  the 
bible,  if  it  can  be  truly  found  there?  I  am  aware  that  you  have 
an  answer  ready,  but  I  can  hardly  think  it  is  such  as  can  well 
satisfy  your  own  mind.  In  such  things  as  you  publish,  and  in 
other  publications  on  your  side,  it  is  often  insinuated  very 
strongly,  that  those,  who  reject  the  doctrine  of  the  Trir.ity.  do 
this,  not  because  they  do  not  find  biblo  evidence  in  support  of 
the  doctrine,  but  -'because  it  transcends  the  limited  faculties 
of  the  human  mind."  But,  Sir,  to  say  nothing  of  the  uncharita- 
ble nature  of  this  insinuation,  is  it  in  human  nature  to  forego  all 
the  secular  advantages  on  the  side  oi  Trinitarianism  merely  to 
avoid  a  profession  of  faith  in  a  mysterious  proposition,  when 
the  same  is  well  supported  by  divine  testimony  .'  You  cannot  be 
insensible,  that  many  rei)uted  Trinitarians  have  found  various 
ways  of  explaining  the  triune  form  of  words  in  a  manner, 
which  involves  no  mystery.  And  is  there  not  much  reason  to 
believe,  that  a  great  proportion  of  those,  who  have  passed  for 
Trinitarians,  have  used  the  common  words  and  forms  of  the 
same  denomination,  without  ain^  such  meaning  as  "  transcends 
the  limited  faculties  of  the  human  mind  ?"  Or,  in  other  words, 
have  not  many,  very  many,  avoided  the  charge  of  heresy  by 
professing  to  believe,  that  there  are  three  persons  in  one  God, 
meaning  only  that  one  God  acts  in  three  offices,  or  hy  explaining 
the  Avords  three  persons  in  some  other  way  no  more  mysteri- 
ous ?  And  if  any  class,  or  classes  of  men  have  scorned  to  avoid 
the  charge  of  heresy  Ijy  any  such  device,  are  they  not  rather  to 
be  praised  than  condemned  for  so  doing  I  And  would  it  be  any 
stretch  of  candour  for  you  to  allow,  that  men  of  integrity  enough 
to  resist  all  the  temptations  to  follow  a  multitude  in  some  such 
course,  would  acknowledge  the  fact,  if  they  could  find  the  doc- 
trine in  question  in  the  bible  ^ 


17 

Kov,',  Sir,  let  mc  inlreat  you  to  caii  to  mind  that  considera- 
ble numbers  in  every  age  have  not  been  Trinitarians.  Think 
of  the  great  numbers,  who  steadily  resisted  all  the  efforts  of 
Athanasius  and  his  adherents  to  establish  his  doctrine.  Think 
of  the  many,  who  manfully  stood  out,  even  after  a  great  council, 
by  a  majority  of  votes,  had  decided  in  favour  of  the  doctrine, 
and  after  it  .vas  sanctioned  by  the  plenitude  of  popish  authori- 
ty. Think  of  the  numerous  Waldcnses  and  Albigcnses,  who, 
through  the  darkest  ages,  distinguished  themselves  by  their  pu- 
rity in  doctrine  and  life  ;  and  of  whom  Trinitarian  writers  al- 
low, that  many  of  them,  at  least,  were  not  Trinitarians.  Think 
of  the  various  classes  among  Protestants,  who  have,  in  many  in- 
stances, to  their  great  secular  disadvantage,  avowed  antitrinita- 
rian  sentiments.  And  think  moreover  of  the  great  proportion 
r>{  reftuted  Trinitarians,  who  have  not  been  able  to  find  any  real 
Trinitarianism  in  the  bible.  Think,  I  entreat  you,  on  these 
things,  and  inquire  seriously,  whether  there  be  not  at  least 
some  probability  that  the  strong  inducements,  you  have  been 
under  to  keep  on  the  popular  side,  may  have  caused  you  to 
mistake  the  true  meaning  of  divine  testimony  ? 

An  aged  person  of  good  understanding,  of  early  undoubted 
piety,  and  of  much  acquaintance  with  the  scriptures,  once  said, 
in  my  hearing,  "  Until  I  lately  read  such  a  book,  I  never  had 
a  thought  that  any  person  in  the  v/orld  ever  believed  that  Jesus 
Christ  was  the  self-existent  God,  Certainly  the  hil)lc  never 
conveyed  any  such  idea  to  my  mind."  This  is  but  one  of  ma- 
ny similar  declarations,  which  have  led  me  to  think  that  the 
number  of  real  Trinitarians  among  the  cominon  people  is  very 
small.  Although  they  so  generally  consent  to  the  use  of  triune 
words  and  forms  of  worship,  yet,  as  I  believe,  they  generally 
have  no  clear  idea  of  what  you  and  others  mean  by  such  words 
and  forms  ;  but  use  them,  supposing  that  learned  and  good  men 
can  see  why  they  should  be  used,  while  at  the  same  time  they 
as  much  believe  that  the  one  supreme  God  is  one  being,  and  his 
son  Jesus  Christ  another,  as  they  believe  the  same  in  respect 
to  any  other  father  and  son.  That  this  is  true  of  a  considerable 
number  of  persons,  brought  up  in  several  Trinitarian  societies, 
I  have  the  most  positive  evidence.  And  I  can  see  no  rea- 
son why  it  is  not  as  likely  to  be  so  with  people  generally  through 
the  christian  world,  as  with  those  Avith  whom  I  have  had  con- 
versation. But  whether  I  am  correct  in  supposing  the  number 
of  such  people  to  be  so  very  large  or  not,  still  in  the  known  fact 
there  seems  to  be  much  weight  of  argument  against  your  theo- 
ry. If  a  person  of  good  understanding,  and  of  genuine  piety, 
although  educated  as  a  Trinitarian,  may  carefully  read  the  bi- 
ble from  youth  to  old  age,  without  having  a  thought,  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  supreme  God,  then  must  there  not  be,  to  say  the 
ieast,  a  great  deficiency  of  scripture  evidence  in  support  of  the 


18 

doctrine,  \vhich  you  hoiel  ;  And  in  view  of  ivuxny  bucli  facts  as  I 
have  stated,  does  it  not  appear  as  hard  for  you  and  others  to  re- 
quire a  belief  in  your  doctrine  as  a  term  of  christian  fellowship, 
as  it  was  for  Phuroah  to  require  of  the  Israelites  brick  without 
straw  ? 

LETTER  VI. 

Containing  an  argument  groiiiHlcd  on  the  fact  that  many,  who  Lad  been  educa- 
ted Trinitarians,  have  changed  sides. 

Sib, 

Another  thing  I  would  lead  you  to  consider  is,  that  not 
a  veiy  few,  who  had  been  educated  Trinitarians,  have,  after  a 
thorough  examination  of  the  subject,  taken  other  ground.  Much 
as  there  ever  has  been  to  induce  all  of  such  education  to  con- 
tiriue  on  the  popular  side,  yet,  at  different  times,  and  in  several 
parts  of  the  christian  world,  no  inconsiderable  numbers,  have  had 
resolution  to  make  such  inquiry,  as  issued  in  a  decided  change 
of  sentiment.  Plow  is  this  to  be  well  accounted  for,  if  your  doc- 
trine is  vvell  founded  ?  That  hundreds  and  thousands,  and  tens  of 
thousands,  even  of  able,  learned,  and  good  men,  should  keep  along 
us  they  were  taught  from  their  youth,  under  such  secular  ad- 
vantages, as  have  perpetually  remained  on  one  side,  is  by  no 
means  unaccountable,  however  erroneous  the  theory  in  question 
may  be.  You  will,  I  think,  allow,  that  on  supposition  Trinita- 
rians are  really  in  the  wrong,  it  is  as  easy  to  see  why  so  many 
continue  in  this  error,  ns  it  is  to  see  why  such  numbers  continue 
in  other  great  errors  of  the  church  of  Rome.  But  that  one  man 
after  another,  in  so  many  instances  as  have  occurred,  should  vol- 
untarily set  himself  up  as  a  mark  and  a  by-word,  and  subject 
himself  to  various  privations  and  sufferings  by  declaring  his 
conviction  of  past  error,  is,  I  think,  not  easily  reconcil'cuble  with 
the  supposition,  that  the  bible  contains  a  solid  foundation  for 
your  theory.  Can  you  do  otherwise  than  allow,  that  one  such 
an  instance  furnishes  more  weight  of  argument  against  you,  thari 
the  continuance  of  thousands  on  tlie  side  where  supposed  truth 
and  secular  case  and  interest  are  all  united  ?  But  we  have  known 
more  than  one  such  instance. ''  Yes,  and  we  have  knowledge  of 
such  a  change  in  a  considerable  number,  who  had  been  men  of 
reputation  for  piety,  orthodoxy,  discernment,  and  information  ; 
and  against  whom  nothing  can  be  truly  said  now,  except  that  they 
have  had  the  resolution  to  inquire  for  themselves,  and  the  hones- 
ty and  independence  to  avow  their  change  of  opinion  on  the  point 
in  question,  and  to  act  accordingly.  And  permit  me.  Sir,  to  add, 
that,  as  I  believe,  all  these  men  would  affirm,  as  in  the  presence 
of  Jehovah,  that  they  did  not  give  up  the  triune  doctrine  "be- 
cause it  transcends  the  limited  faculties  of  tlie  human  mind  ;" 
but  because  on  examination,  they  found  not  only  a  great  want  of 
pjain  divine  warrant  in  support  of  it,  but  also  found  such  ex* 


19 

plicit,  positive,  and  abundant  divine  testimony  against  it,  tliat  if 
they  had  not  once  been  Trinitarians  themselves,  they  could  hard- 
ly believe  that  any  man,  with  the  bible  in  his  hands,  could  l)e  hon- 
est in  a  profession  of  such  faith.  Would  you  ask,  why  .they  did 
not  discover  all  this  before  ?  My  answer  is,  they  went  on  in  tlic 
common  track,  without  any  thorough  examination  in  respect  to 
the  matter,  until  in  some  v/ay  they  were  roused  to  more  faith- 
ful inquiry.  Would  you  ask  whether  I  suppose,  that  thorough 
inquiry  on  this  point  has  never  been  made  by  any,  who  have 
continued  to  be  Trinitarians  ?  Although  it  may  at  first  seem  un- 
candid  I  must  answer,  yes  :  It  is  Sir,  my  decided  opinion  tiiat 
every  man,  who  ever  did  make  thorough  inquiry,  with  his  mind 
open  to  the  light  of  truth,  has  been  convinced  that  Trinitarian- 
ism  is  of  human  device.  I  have  no  doubt  that  you,  and  many 
others,  have  spent  considerable  time,  endeavouring  to  find  evi- 
dence in  favour  of  what  you  and  they  believed,  and  wished  still 
to  believe.  But  I  do  not  think  that  you,  or  any  other  man,  who 
is  now  on  your  side,  ever  rose  above  all  prepossession,  preju- 
dice, and  self-interest,  feeling  as  willing  to  find  truth  on  the  un- 
popular side  as  on  the  other,  and  then  weighed  every  argument, 
which  could  be  found  both  for  and  against  what  you  believe,  b^ 
the  most  patient  and  fair  comparison  of  scripture  v.ith  scripture, 
and  making  all  divine  testimony  in  most  perfect  agreement  with 
itself,  the  test  of  truth.  It  is.  Sir,  my  settled  opinion,  that  a 
great  mistake  in  respect  to  what  you  and  others  on  your  side. 
have  done,  by  way  of  inquiry  in  this  matter,  goes  far  to  support 
your  doctrine  in  the  minds  of  men.  I  have  no  doubt  that  many 
of  your  readers  suppose,  that  you  have  paid  much  attention  to 
the  subject  in  a  candid  and  impartial  manner.  But,  Sir,  permit 
me  to  ask,  is  it  not  a  fact,  that  Avith  all  your  ability  and  study, 
you  have  greater  reliance  on  the  examination,  which  you  sup- 
pose others  on  your  side  have  made,  than  you  have  on  your  own 
research  as  to  the  particular  point  now  in  view  ?  I  ask  this 
question  with  a  desire  to  lead  you  and  others  to  useful  reflec- 
tion ;  because  I  verily  think  that  some  suppose  you  have  done 
much  more  by  way  of  critical  and  impartial  inquiry  than  is  a 
matter  of  fact,  and  that  you  are  under  the  same  mistake  as  to 
what  others  before  you,  and  others  of  the  present  day  have  done. 
If  all  such  mistakes  were  well  rectified,  then  it  might  be  hoped, 
that  you  and  other  Trinitarians  would  set  about  such  inquiry,  as 
I  believe  never  yet  failed  to  end  in  a  conviction,  that  the  most 
high  God  is  one,  and  but  one  person.  But  so  long  as  you  shall 
feel  confident,  that  many  great  and  good  men  have  done  by  way 
of  inquiry  what  in  fact  they  never  did  ;  and  so  long  as  many  in 
like  manner  shall  rely  on  yourself,  and  on  other  writers,  no  less 
deficient,  it  Avill  seem  needless,  as  it  is  very  often  expressed. 
"  to  go  over  all  the  ground  again," 


20 


LETTER  VII. 

Containing  arguments,    resulting  from  liie  various  ilufiiiiiions  given   by  Triuita-' 
riuus,  and  froiri  tbeir  maimer  ot'  treating  opijoneiils. 

Sir, 

Another  thing,  Avhich  seems  to  me  worthy  of  your  very 
serious  consideration,  is  the  great  diversity  in  the  explanations* 
of  those,  who  have  passed  for  Trinitarians.  If  the  doctrine, 
for  which  you  so  earnestly  contend,  be  true,  it  certainly  is  true 
in  some  definite  sense.  And  one  would  suppose,  that  sense 
would  be  easily  found  the  scriptures,  if  there  be  any  such  thintj 
as  revelation  concerning;  the  matter.  How  then  has  it  happen- 
ed, that  so  many,  and  such  diverse  opinions  have  been  given  as 
to  the  meaning  of  trie  words  three  persons  in  one  God  ?  Why 
lias  one  cla^s  of  Trinitarians  believed,  that  there  are  three 
agents,  each  possessed  of  all  divine  perfections  ;  another,  that 
one  being  acts  in  three  different  offices  ;  another,  that  three 
principal  attributes  of  Deity  are  personified  ;  another,  that  the 
three  persons  designate  three  positions  of  the  same  Divine 
Being  ;  another,  that  there  arc  ''  three  somewhats"'  or  "  three 
somet/dngs"  in  the  one  God  ;  and  another,  that  it  is  proper  to 
use  the  triune  phraseology  without  any  given  sense,  it  being, 
in  their  view,  irreverent,  if  not  impious,  to  attempt,  or  even  to 
inquire  after  any  definition  or  explanation  I  These,  Sir,  are  but 
a  part  of  the  many  ways,  in  which  different  classes  of  Trinita- 
rians have  endeavoured  to  justify  their  use  of  triune  language, 
in  the  most  solemn  transactions  and  acts  of  religious  worship. 
1:-.  there  not,  then,  much  reason  to  doubt,  whether  there  be  in 
the  bible  any  real  foundation  for  any  use  of  the  common  Trini- 
tarian forms  ? 

But  anothel"  thing  of  still  more  importance  to  be  considered, 
is  the  manner,  in  which  you,  and  others  on  your  side,  have 
treated  conscientious  dissenters  from  your  doctrine.  Is  it  not, 
in  the  view  of  wise  observers,  characteristic  of  the  most  erro- 
neous sectarians,  to  rely  on  a  certain  round  of  specious  argu- 
ments, regardless  of  whatever  is  said  to  shew  their  fallacy,  and 
never  fairly  meeting  the  arguments,  which  support  the  truth 
against  them  ?  On  the  other  hand,  is  it  not  characteristic  of 
those,  who  have  the  truth  on  their  side,  to  give  strong  reasons 
for  their  opinions,  at  the  same  time  pointing  out  the  fallacy  of 
tlic  most  specious  arguments,  which  are  urged  in  support  of 
error  ?  Now,  Sir,  have  not  very  strong  scripture  reasons  been 
given  in  support  of  opinions  contrary  to  yours,  and  has  it  not 
been  fairly  shewn,  that  there  is  material  defect  in  all  the  argu- 
ments, on  which  you  and  other  Trinitarians  rely  ?  But  where  is 
the  manly  attempt  to  point  out  any  fallacy  in  the  main  argu- 
ments, urged  in  support  of  opinions  contrary  to  yours  ?  Or 
where  is  the  manly  reply  to  what  has  been  said  to  point  out  the 


21 


^  * 


fallacy  of  Trinitarian  ar[^uments  ?  Where  is  any  thing,  which 
has  been  directed  against  your  opponents  in  any  other  manner 
than  in  that  which  is  characteristic  of  a  bad  cause  ?  If  you 
really  have  the  truth  on  your  side,  then  certainly  it  may  be 
clearly  shewn,  that  there  is  material  defect  in  the  main  argu- 
ments urged  in  support  of  contrary  opinions  ;  and  if  it  can  be 
made  to  appear,  that  your  arguments  are  not  so  defective  as 
they  have  been  represented,  why  has  this  been  omitted  ?  Why 
have  you  and  others  continued  to  repeat  arguments,  the  suppo- 
sed fallacy  of  which  has  been  often  pointed  out,  without  taking 
any  notice  of  what  has  been  said  to  show  their  defect  ?  And  in- 
stead of  doing,  as  you  have  done,  in  respect  to  opinions  contra- 
ry to  your  own,  why  have  you  not  fairly  met  the  arguments  urg- 
ed in  support  of  such  opinions,  clearly  exposing  such  defects, 
as  ever  can  be  found  in  arguments  used  to  support  error  ? 

After  I  had  become  seriously  apprehensive,  that  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  was  not  founded  in  truth,  instead  of  making  any 
secret  of  such  apprehensions,  I  conversed  in  the  most  frank  and 
open  manner  with  brethren  in  the  ministry,  as  often  as  I  had 
favourable  opportunity,  earnestly  desiring  them  to  point  out  any, 
and  all  supposed  deficiency  in  my  arguments  In  like  manner, 
I  also  wrote  to  a  large  number  of  my  ministerial  acquaintance, 
laying  myself  entirely  open,  and  expressing  the  most  sincere 
and  earnest  desire  that  those,  to  whom  I  wrote,  would  not  fail 
to  shew  me,  if  it  were  possible,  wherein  I  misunderstood  and  mis- 
applied scripture,  and  wherein  there  was  any  other  defect  in  such 
arguments,  as  to  me  appeared  invincible.  But  no  such  help  have 
I  ever  obtained.  Ready  as  many  have  been  to  unite  in  the  cry  of 
heresy  against  me,  not  one  man  has  ever  attempted,  in  any  con- 
versation, or  in  any  letter,  to  point  out  a  single  defect  in  any  ar- 
gument urged  by  me,  either  against  your  theory,  or  in  support  of 
my  own.  What,  Sir,  is  the  most  natural  inference  from  all  this  ? 
If  truth  is  on  your  side,  what  has  prevented  such  an  exposure  of 
the  fallacy  of  my  reasonings,  as,  in  that  case,  brotherly  faithful- 
ness must  have  required  ?  Is  it  not  at  least  very  natural  for  me 
to  suppose,  that  ministers  and  others,  with  whom  I  have  conver- 
sed, and  to  whom  I  have  written,  would  gladly  have  pointed 
out  any  material  defect  in  my  arguments,  if  it  had  been  in  their 
power  ?  And  if  this  were  not  in  their  power,  have  I  not  strong 
reason  to  believe,  that  I  have  truth  on  my  side  ?  And  what.  Sir, 
is  the  fair  inferrence  from  the  manner,  in  which  you  and  others 
have  treated  the  author  of  "  Bible  News,"  and  his  writings  ? 
After  all  your  allusions  to  that  author,  and  all  your  pointed  in- 
sinuations against  what  he  has  published,  in  what  page  of  the 
Panoplist  shall  be  found  a  fair,  candid  refutation  of  his  theory, 
or  of  a  single  argument  he  has  used  ?  If  it  has  not  been  in  your 
power  to  set  aside  his  theory  by  a  fair  exhibition  of  divine  tes- 
timony, why  have  you  said  so  much  to  excite  alarm,  and  to  fill 
4, 


your  readers  with  prejudice  against  his  writings  ?  And  if  it  has 
been  in  your  power  to  make  it  clearly  evident,  that  his  theory 
is  not  founded  in  truth,  why  have  you  not  done  this,  in  a  manly 
chrisiiun  manner,  instead  of  publishing  such  insinuations,  in- 
vectives, and  aspersions,  as  have  appeared  in  several  numbers 
of  that  work?  In  like  manner-there  is  room  to  query  in  respect 
to  all,  that  others  have  written  against  "  Bible  News."  Much  as 
you  have  praised  some  things  published  against  it,  yet  among 
all  the  pamphlets  it  has  occasioned,  who  can  name  one,  in  which 
any  writer  has  iairly  met,  and  refuted  a  single  proposition,  or  a 
single  argument  of  the  so  much  reprobated  work  ?  As  it  was 
easy  for  Tiiomas  Paine  to  say  many  things  against  the  bible, 
while  it  was  not  in  his  power  to  invalidate  the  arguments,  which 
prove  that  the  scriptures  were  written  by  inspiration  of  God; 
so  it  is  easy  for  men  to  find  something  to  say  against  every 
thing,  which  has  been  or  can  be  written  on  the  side  of  truth  ; 
while  at  the  same  time  nothing  can  be  done  to  overthrow  any 
sound  principle,  or  to  invalidate  any  sound  argument  in  the 
view  of  men  given  to  thorough  investigation.  And  when  men 
of  ability  and  information  indulge  themselves  in  declamation, 
invective  and  reviling,  against  any  opponent;  especially  when 
they  do  this  without  any  attempt  to  detect  him  in  any  false 
reasoning,  is  it  not  to  be  inferred,  that  his  arguments  are  too 
too  sound  to  be  answered  in  any  fair  and  conclusive  manner? 
Now,  Sir,  in  respect  to  iha  author  before  mentioned,  who  has 
attempted  to  point  out  any  sophistry,  or  any  perversion  of  divine 
testimony,  or  any  unnatural  inference  from  his  premises,  in 
what  he  has  published  on  the  subject,  to  which  I  refer  ?  Do 
not  all  tlie  arguments  found  in  his  '»  Bible  News,"  all  which  arc 
found  in  his  ''  Address  to  the  Trinitarian  Clergy,"  and  all  which 
are  iound  in  the  several  numbers  of  his  "  Appeal  to  the  Candid," 
remain  as  much  unanswered,  as  the  best  arguments,  which  have 
been  stated  to  prove  tlie  divine  authority  of  the  holy  scriptures  ? 
In  short,  is  not  all,  that  you  and  others  have  printed  against  that 
author,  more  favourable  it)  the  conclusion^  that  his  theory  is  cor- 
rect, and  that  his  arguments  are  sound,  than  of  the  contrary  ? 
For  if  you,  or  any  other  writer  against  him,  had  been  able  to 
make  it  appear,  that  his  views  are  inconsistent  with  the  tenor 
of  scripture,  how  glailly  would  it  have  been  done,  even  to  the  ru- 
in of  his  reputation,  and  that  of  all,  who  favour  his  sentiments. 

In  this  connexion  I  am  constrained  to  ask,  how  it  can  be  rea- 
sonable, or  h-yw  it  can  be  safe,  for  you  to  represent,  that  men, 
against  whom  nothing  else  can  be  said,  are  in  the  way  to  final 
perdition,  mer«.dy  because  they  have  given  up  the  doctrine  of 
three  persons  in  one  God,  when  for  so  doing  they  have  given 
such  weighty  scripture  reasons,  as  no  man  has  yet  been  able  to 
answer;  and  when  the  views,  which  they  now  entertain,  are  such 
as  they  can  in  the  clearest  manner  express  in  the  very  language 


*     25 

of  divine  testimony,  used  in  the  most  perfect  afjreemetaft  wilJi 
the  tenor  of  scripture  ? 

I  have  further  to  ask,  how  it  can  be  to  the  credit  of  Trinita- 
rianism,  that  it  has  been  so  long  and  so  much  supported  by 
terrific  denunciations  against  all,  who  do  not  continue  to  hold 
it  fast  ?  It  cannot  be  denied,  that  for  a  long  time  the  state  of 
things  in  every  considerable  pa!t  of  Christendom  has  been  such, 
that  there  has  been  much  to  deter  nven  from  free,  impartial  in- 
(Juiry  on  this  subject,  and  fi  om  any  other  than  the  common  pro- 
fession on  this  article.  If  it  had  been  otherwise,  is  there  not 
much  reason  to  believe  that  the  Trinitarian  doctrine  would 
have  been  generally  given  up  long  ago  ?  But,  to  say  nothing 
more  of  former  periods  and  other  parts  of  the  world,  suppose, 
Sir,  that  ever  since  "  Bible  JVews"  was  published,  there  had 
been  nothing  in  any  part  of  this  country  to  make  any  man 
afraid  to  inquire,  and  speak  his  mind  ;  and  suppose,  that  the 
general  voice,  and  the  general  conduct  of  the  clergy  had  been 
of  a  nature  to  encourage  every  one  to  read,  and  examine,  and 
to  avow  his  sentiments  without  fear  or  restraint,  is  there  not 
much  reason  to  think,  that,  by  this  time,  the  apparent  number 
on  your  side  would  have  been  far  less  than  it  is  now  ?  If  you 
will  not  allow  this,  or  if  you  will  not  admit  that  a  fear  of  censure 
and  reproach  has  any  influence  in  the  support  of  your  doctrine 
in  question,  then  why  will  not  you  and  all  other  Trinitarians 
agree  to  make  a  fair  experiment  in  regard  to  this  matter  ? 
That  is,  why  will  you  not  all  agree  to  lay  aside  all  "  bitterness, 
and  wrath,  and  evil  speaking,"  in  respect  to  any,  who  differ  from 
you  ?  Why  will  you  not  agree  to  treat  all  as  good  men,  who,  ia 
other  respects,  appear  to  be  such,  whatever  they  may  believe  as 
to  the  point  in  question  ?  Why  will  you  not  likewise  agree  to 
require  of  candidates  lor  the  ministry,  np  more  by  way  of  con- 
fession of  faith,  than  was  required  in  the  days  of  the  apostles, 
and  long  afterwards.*     Why  will  you  not,  in  short,  all  agree  to 

•  "  What  is  the  chaff  to  the  wheat,  saith  the  Lord  ?"  But  while  Trinitarians 
make  it  a  ni!e  to  license  no  man  for  the  miuisti-y  without  a  contession  that  tioil 
is  three  persons,  are  they  not  very  likely  to  save  "chaff"  and  lose  "wheat!" 
For  is  it  not  a  very  easy  thing  fur  the  most  nnwortliy  candidate  to  ho  prcfiared 
with  such  words  as  he  well  knows  will  be  rp(iiiireil  ?  And  who  but  a  man  of  integ- 
rity and  uprightness  is  likely  to  hesitate  about  vising  mch  popular  words,  as  are 
made  indispensable,  andyet  understood  very  differently,  so  far  as  they  are  under- 
iitood  at  all?  Besides,  who  can  help  seeing  that  it  is  next  to  impossible  for  young- 
men,  wlio  are  determined  to  be  ministers,  to  make  any  impartial  imjuiry  in  re- 
spect to  any  article  of  faith,  which  they  know  they  must  consent  to,  or  faifof  tlieir 
object!  And  of  what  real  value  is  any  confession  of  faith  which  is  not  the  fruit  of 
thorough  investigation,  or  of  free  impartial  inquiry  ?  Is  it  not  mere  "  chaff!" 

Not  lougaf^o.  a  certain  association  refused  to  license  a  very  worthy,  pious,  well 
informed  yoiT»>';-  man,  merely  because  he  could  not,  with  a  good  conscience,  say 
he  believed,  that  God  exists  in  three  coequal  persons.  Soon  after,  the  same  asso- 
ciation licensed  another  man,  who  mast  have  been  considereil  in  every  other  re- 
spect/ar  inferior  to  the  other;  hut  "he  could  frame  to  pronounce"  the  "Shibiio.. 
leth"  which  was  required.     Another,  as  I  trust,  well  disposed  vouog  mnn,  had, 


"  '*'*      .» 


1     "  24      * 


«uch  a  course  of  conduct  in  all  respects,  as  shall  encourage 
all  men  to  the  most  free  and  impartial  inquiry  on  the  subject, 
and  to  the  most  frank  and  open  avowal  of  whatever  they  shall 
see  cause  to  believe  ?  If  all  this  should  be  done  for  any  consid- 
erable time,  and  Trinitarianism  should  still  prevail  as  much  as 
ever,  such  prevalence  would  certainly  be  far  more  to  the  credit 
of  the  doctrine  than  what  we  now  witness.  And  can  you,  Sir, 
give  any  good  reason  Avhy  such  an  experiment  as  I  have  pro- 
posed, should  not  be  made  ?  Is  not  gospel  truth  of  a  nature  to 
support  itself  without  the  aid  of  carnal  weapons  or  human  de- 
vices ?  And  have  not  you  and  others  already  gone  much  too  far 
by  way  of  condemning  some,  of  whoia  Jesus  7nay  not  !)e  asham- 
ed, when  we  shall  stand  before  his  judgnieiit  se.;;:  ?  Did  he  not, 
when  setting  "an  example  that  we  should  follow  his  steps," 
manifest  such  a  spirit  of  forbearance,  tenderness,  and  io\e  to- 
wards such,  as  were  by  him  knoum  to  be  in  greai^  error,  as  you 
and  others  have  not  manifested  towards  some,  whom  you  oily 
imagme  to  be  in  great  error  ?  Have  not  Hopkinsian  Trinitarians 
already  felt,  in  some  degree,  what  it  is  to  have  their  own  meas- 
ure meted  to  them  again  ?*  And  how  long  shall  such  retribu- 
tion go  the  round  among  christians,  ere  we  all  learn,  that  no 
error  in  sentiment,  of  whatever  magnitude,  is  such  a  transgres- 
sion of  the  law  of  Christ,  as  a  want  of  love  towards  any  man,  in 
whom  is  found  any  measure  of  his  spirit  ? 


LETTER  VIII. 

Containing  an  argument  drawn  from  the  recorded  Tvorship  of  the  ancient  people 

of  God. 

Sir, 

Another  thing,  which  appears  to  me  worthy  of  your 
very  serious  consideration  is,  that  all  the  ancient  people  of  God 
appear  to  have  worshipped  him  invarlab/y  as  one,  and  but  one 
person.  We  have,  both  in  the  old,  and  in  the  New  Testament, 
many  specimens  of  the  manner,  in  which  the  people  of  God  wor- 
shipped him  ;  but  among  thern,  all  there  is  not  one  example  for 
triune  worship.  This,  1  believe,  has  been  explicitly  or  implicit- 
ly acknowledged  by  all,  who  have  written  on  your  side.  No 
such  writer  has,  to  my  knowledge,  produced  an  instance,  which 

for  a  considerable  time,  dissented  from  the  triuae  doctrine  ;  but  while  he  was 
preparing  for  the  ministry,  findinj;  it  necessary  in  order  to  get  along  according  to 
riis  wishes,  he  all  at  once  appeared  to  have  found  some  way  lo  use  tlie  'I'rinitarian 
phraseology,  so  as  to  have  it  pas*.  Accordingly  he  obtaintd  license,  and  not  long 
after  was  ordained.  At  the  time  of  liis  ordination,  as  i  liavc  been  very  credibly 
informed,  he  doubted  whether  there  he  property  tliree  persons,  but  said  "  there 
are  three  somethingi  in  the  one  God  !  J  /'"  May  it  not  with  great  truth  be  said, 
♦*  Brethren,  these  things  ought  not  so  to  be  ?" 

*  This  query  has  reference  to  what  Las  been  done  ip  New  York. 


*  ^       25 

lie  would  venture  to  call  worship  in  a  triune  fofm ;  but  hovv 
gladly  would  this  have  been  done,  if  it  had  been  possible.  I  am 
not  however  insensible,  that  it  has  been  represented,  that  we 
have  authority  for  triune  worship  in  the  baptizing  commission 
given  by  our  Lord  to  his  disciples  But  why  it  should  be  con- 
sidered as  an  act  of  worship  to  baptize  as  Jesus  has  command- 
ed, I  know  not  As  far  as  I  can  see,  it  would  be  quite  as  cor- 
rect to  speak  of  the  proper  use  of  the  words  "Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Spirit,"  in  any  other  case  as  an  act  of  worship.  But  be 
this  as  it  may,  it  remains  true,  that  there  is  no  example  for 
triune  worship  in  the  bible,  for  no  man  will  say,  that  it  was  an 
act  of  worship  for  our  Lord  to  speak  to  his  apostles,  saying, 
•f  "  Go  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  into  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ;"  and  it  cannot 
be  shewn,  that  the  apostles  or  any  other  servant  of  Christ,  men- 
tioned in  the  New  Testament,  ever  u&ed  these  same  words  in 
the  act  of  baptizing.  I  would  not,  however,  be  understood  to 
call  in  question  the  propriety  of  such  use  of  the  words.  But, 
however  proper  this  may  be,  yet  seeing  there  is  no  example  of  it 
in  the  New  Testament,  it  betrays  the  weakness  of  your  cause 
to  quote  the  words  in  view,  as  scripture  authority  for  triune 
worship  And  however  it  may  be  contended,  that  baptizing  is 
an  act  of  worship,  there  is  certainly  no  explicit  warrant  for  any 
man  to  address  ;he  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  one 
God,  in  any  act  of  worship.  Neither  is  there,  to  my  knowl- 
edge, an  iota  of  divine  warrant  to  worship  the  Lord  Jesus  in 
any  other  character  tlian  that  of  "  the  king  of  the  Jews,"  "the 
Son  of  God,"  "the  first  begotten,"  "the  Lamb,"  and  our 
"  Lord  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father."  It  ieems  never  to 
have  been  duly  considered  by  Trinitarians,  that  it  is  nothing  to 
your  purpose  to  prove,  that  Christ  has  been,  and  should  be 
worshipped,  unless  it  can  be  proved,  that  he  has  been  and 
should  be  worshipped,  as  the  supreme  God.  That  we  have 
scripture  authority  for  worshipping  him  in  soi^ie  sense  is  not 
denied.  Neither  can  it  be  denied,  that  the  scriptures  speak  of 
worship  of  some  sort,  paid  to  other  persons  besides  God  and 
his  beloved  Son.  Certainly  you  will  not  deny  that  on  a  time 
the  assembled  Israelites  "  bowed  their  heads  and  worshipped 
God,  and  the  kmg-.*'  And  it  is  as  certain,  that  you  cannot  ra- 
tionally infer  from  the  worship  paid  to  that  temporal  king  of 
Israel,  that  he  was  the  Most  High  God.  By  what  authority 
then  can  you  infer  from  any  worship  paid  to  Christ  that  he  is 
the  supreme  God  ?  Surely  it  ought  to  be  proved,  as  it  never 
yet  has  been,  that,  in  some  instance  of  the  worship  mentioned 
in  scripture,  it  was  indisputably  worship  paid  to  our  Lord  as 
the  supreme  Jehovah,  before  the  circumstance  of  his  being^ 
worshipped  is  any  more  urged  as  evidence  of  his  supreme 
divinity. 


26 

In  short,  Sir,  as  to  the  Son  nnd  the  Holy  Spirit,  wli:tt  precept  or 
example  can  you  produce,  which  will  support  you  in  that  kind 
of  worship,  in  which  a  writer  on  your  side  secins  to  glorv,  when 
to  a  Unitarian  he  says  "  Wc  worship,  Sir,  thr  Fatheh,  thk 
Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  ?  Do  you  worship  this  same  God?"* 
Did  any  of  the  ancient  Patriarchs  "  uorship  this  same  Ciod  ?" 
Did  Moses  or  Joshua,  or  Samuel,  or  David  or  Solomon  'Mvor- 
ship  this  same  God  ?''  Did  any  of  the  prophe,is,  or  John  thn 
baptist,  or  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  or  any  of  his  apostles  "  worship 
this  same  God  ?  '  Were  the  apostles  and  others  taught  to  "wor- 
ship this  same  God"  when  our  Lord  said  "After  this  manner 
pray  ye,  Our  Father  who  art  in  Heaven,''  Sec.  ?  Or  is  such  wor- 
ship justified  by  these  words  of  the  Saviour,  '■'■The  trne  wor- 
shijificrs  shall  worshi/i  the  Father  P"  Is  it  not  rather  presump- 
tuous for  any  man  to  add  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit  to  make  out 
an  object  of  "o-z/e*'  supreme  worship?  Is  not  this  bcinf^  wise 
above  what  is  written  ?  And  may  it  not  be  well  for  you,  and 
other  Trinitarians  to  pause  and  consider  seriously,  whether  such 
worship,  as  has  not  a  single  scripture  precept  or  example  for  its 
support,  does  not  render  you  very  liable  to  the  solcniU  inter- 
rogation, '■'■Who  hath  required  this  at  your  ha^ids  .?" 


LETTER  IX. 

On  the  explicit  and  abundant  tesiimony  that  God  is  one  person. 

Siu, 

I  WOULD  next  lead  you  to  consider  what  appears  to  mc 
to  be  explicit  and  abundant  divine  testimony  that  God  is  but 
one  person.  It  is  plainly  written  in  the  scripture?  of  truth  "To 
us  there  is  but  one  God  the  Father."  "  A  mediator  is  not 
a  mediator  of  one,  but  God  is  onk,''  "the  holy  One,"  "the 
high  and  lofty  Onk."  Such  is  the  explicit  language  of  divine 
testimony.  Accordingly  in  all,  that  is  addressed  to  Jehovah 
through  the  whole  bible,  he  is  addressed  as  one  and  but  one  per- 
son. Also  in  all  that  is  said  of  him,  he  is  spoken  of  as  one  and 
but  one  person.  I^ikewise  in  cVery  thing  he  has  himself  saiil,  he 
has  spoken  as  one  and  but  one  person.  For  although  he  has  in 
a  very  few  instances  used  the  plural  number,  yet  in  every  such 
instance  has  he  not  spoken  as  one  person  in  company  with  anoth- 
er, and  not  in  one  instance  as  though  two  or  more  persons  were 
speaking  at  the  same  time  ?  Instead  of  wc  will  make  man,  the 
manner  is  '■'■Let  us  make  man.'*  And  is  it  not  in  this  manner 
in  every  instance,  in  which  God  is  represented,  as  using  the 
plural  number  when  speaking  of  himself?  And  how  can  it  be 
difficult  for  any  man  to  account  for  such  use  of  the  plural  num- 

*  See  the  Review  before  quoted,  p.  i. 


27 

ber  without  supposing,  that  God  is  more  than  one  person,  when 
it  is  certainly  no  uncommon  thing  for  one  person  to  speak  af- 
ter the  same  manner,  when  no  other  person  unites  in  what  is 
said  I  Of  this  are  there  not  frequent  instances  in  the  sacred 
pages-  as  in  other  writings  ?  Besides,  as  the  Word,  the  only- 
begotten  of  the  Father,  was  v/ith  him  in  the  beginning,  and  as 
"  without  him  there  was  not  any  thing  made,"  is  it  not  very 
natural  to  suppose  that  Jehovah  spake  to  his  Son  in  all  the  in- 
stances to  which  reference  is  now  made  ? 

But  if  it  be  admitted,  that  such  a  manner  of  speaking  would 
have  been  proof  of  a  plurality  of  persons  iu  the  Deity  ;  if  the 
same  had  been  common  through  the  bible,  what  then  is  the 
©verbalancing  amount  of  evidence,  that  God  is  but  one  person, 
arising  from  the  use  of  the  singular  num.ber  by,  and  of,  and  to 
God,  in  the  proportion  of  more  than  a  thousand  instances  to 
Gne  I  In  short,  Sir,  supposing  it  to  be  a  fact  that  God  is  but 
one  person,  how  could  this  have  been  made,  by  divine  testimo- 
ny, more  evident  than  it  is  made  ;  except  that  it  might  have 
been  expressly  affirmed  that  God  is  not  three  persons  ?  And 
why  would  not  this  have  been  just  as  superfluous  as  it  would 
J^^)c  for  me  to  tell  my  readers,  that  I  am  not  three  persons  ? 


LETTER  X. 

On  tJie  want  of  any  good  reason,  wliy  three  divine  persons  should  speak  and  bead- 
dressed  in  the  siu-ular  number. 

Sir,  , 

It  appears  essential  to  the  Trinitarian  theory,  that  there 
should  be  some  good  reason,  why  three  divine  persons  should 
invariably  speak,  be  spoken  to,  and  spoken  of  in  the  bible,  as  but 
one  person  would  speak.  Sec;  but  to  to  me  it  appears,  that  no 
such  reason  has  been  or  can  be  given.  As  in  the  scriptures  there 
is  so  much  said  by,  and  to,  and  of  Jehovah,  and  all  exactly  in 
such  language  as  must  have  been  used,  on  the  supposition  that 
God  is  but  one  person,  unless  some  good  reason  can  be  assign- 
ed, shewing  why  three  divine  persons  should  address  others, 
and  be>themselves  addressed,  as  but  one  person,  your  theory  in 
question  must,  it  should  seem,  fall  to  the  ground.  What  thea 
is  the  great  reason  assigned  for  such  a  departure  from  the  in- 
variable use  and  signification  of  words  in  every  other  case  ?  All 
the  reason,  which  has  been,  or  can  be  given  is,  that  the  three 
supposed  divine  persons  are  one,  and  but  one  God.  But,  Sir, 
as  currently  as  this  reason  has  passed  for  a  long  time,  it  ap- 
pears to  me  utterly  unavailing.  For  there  is  no  other  known 
case,  in  which  a  plurality  of  persons,  however  united,  speak  as 
but  one.  It  is,  therefore,  contrary  to  all  analogy,  and  contrary 
to  all  custom  aaad  ajl  rule,  as  to  the  use  ©f  \yords  in  every  Ian- 


28 


guage,  to  suppose  that  a  God,  existing  in  three  persons,  should 
speak  and  be  addressed  in  the  singular  number.  By  saying 
there  is  but  one  God^  you  assign  no  reason  why  three  fiersons 
should  speak  as  but  one  fiernon.  You  say,  "God  is  one  in  es- 
sence.'' Be  it  so  ;  yet  you  say,  this  same  God  is  three  ficrsonn. 
Certainly,  then,  these  three  persons  could  properly  speak  after 
this  manner,  We,  Our.,  Us,  Sec.  This  Trinitarians  grunt,  by 
drawing  an  argument,  from  the  few  instances  to  be  found,  of  the 
use  of  plural  words  by  Jehovah.  In  so  doing  you  certainly  ad- 
mit, and  even  contend,  that,  althougli  there  is  but  one  God.  yet 
this  one  God  is  in  such  a  sense  three  persons,  that  he  can  with 
propriety  speak  in  plural  language  exactly  as  any  other  three 
persons  would  properly  speak.  This  being  as  you  suppose  ; 
th«n  Avhy  is  not  all  that  is  said  by,  and  concerning  Jehovah,  in 
the  plural  number?  If,  "in  the  mode  of  the  divine  existence," 
there  is  a  proper  foundation  for  God  to  speak  once  as  any  oth- 
er three  persons  would  speak,  why  is  there  not  the  same  foun- 
dation for  him  to  speak  always  in  the  same  manner  ?  Yes,  and 
if  there  be  a  proper  foundation  for  him  to  speak  once  as  three 
other  persons  would  speak,  how  can  it  be  otherwise  than  as 
improper  for  him  ever  to  speak  as  but  one  person,  as  it  would 
be  for  any  other  three  persons  to  speak  as  but  one  ?  Would  you 
say  again,  "because  he  is  but  one  God  ?"  I  reply,  he  is  not,  as 
you  say,  one  God  in  any  such  sense  as  renders  it  improper  for 
him  to  speak  as  three  fiersons.  What,  then,  can  it  be  short  of 
a  gross  absurdity,  and  a  palpable  contradiction  to  say,  also,  that 
it  is  jirojicr  for  him  to  speah  as  but  one  person  ?  Truly,  Sir,  it 
does  appear  to  me,  that  we  should  estimate  the  reason,  which 
God  has  given  u.s  so  highly  as  not  to  admit  that  it  is  perfectly 
proper  for  God  to  speak  as  three  persons,  and  at  the  same  time 
as  proper  for  him  to  speak  as  but  one  person,  without  the  most 
explicit,  direct  and  positive  evidei;ce,  that  all  this  is  true. 
Contend  as  much  as  you  will  for  the  unity  of  God,  yet,  so  long 
as  you  say  he  is  three  persons,  the  unity  contended  for  amounts 
to  no  reason,  why  he  should  speak  and  be  spoken  to,  and  of,  as 
but  one  person.  Whatever  may  be  his  unity,  if  he  be  not  one 
person  only,  there  can  be  no  reason  why  he  should  address  oth- 
ers, and  be  addressed  as  but  one. 

Moreover,  you  say  there  are  three  fiersons  in  one  God;  but 
why  may  you  not  with  equal  propriety  say  there  are  three  Gods 
in  one  person?  I  really  do  not  see  Avhy  this  would  be  any  more 
inconsistent  with  propriety,  nor  why  it  would  be  any  more  in- 
consistent with  divine  testimony.  In  fact,  to  gay  there  are  three 
Gods  in  one  person  seems  less  inconsistent  with  scripture  lan- 
guage and  more  accordant  with  some  Trinitarian  arguments,  than 
to  say  "  there  are  three  persons  in  one  God  "  By  your  writers 
much  use  is  made  of  what  is  found  in  the  beginning  of  John's 
gospel,   and   in  the   beginning  of  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 


29 

ISut  what  is  there  in  either  of  those  passages,  which  so  much 
favours  the  hypothesis  of  one  God  in  three  persons,  as  that  of 
three  Gods  in  one  person  ?  In  one  passage  we  read  of  tha 
Word,  who  was  in  the  heginning  with  God,  and  was  God. 
Here  we  find  in  some  sense  more  Gods  than  one  ;  but  no  inti- 
mation is  given  of  more  than  one  person  in  any  God.  Like- 
wise in  fhe  other  passage  we  find  it  written,  that  "  unto  the 
Son  God  saith,  Thy  throne  O  God  is  forever  and  ever."  Here 
also  we  find  mention  of  two  Gods,  but  no  intimation  that  any 
God  is  more  than  one  person.  Indeed,  in  connexion  with  the 
words  last  quoted,  the  most  high  God  is  expressly  represented 
as  but  one  person  ;  for  the  Son  is  there  spoken  of  as  "  the  ex- 
press image  of  his  peksox.''  Do  not  these  things  really  seena 
more  favourable  to  the  supposition,  that  there  arc  three  Gods 
in  one  person,  than  to  your  theory  ?  Besides,  Trinitarian  writers 
speak  of  certain  Hebrew  words,  which  are  applied  to  God,  and 
say  the  import  of  each  of  those  words  is  "  Gods.''*  VVhy  then 
would  you  not  be  more  consistent  in  contending  for  a  plurality 
of  Gods  in  one  person  than  for  a  plurality  of  persons  in  one 
God  ?  ;^y  thus  changing  your  theory,  is  it  not  evident  that  you 
would  render  it  far  more  consistent  with  all  ihat  Jehovah  says, 
with  all  that  is  addressed  to  him,  and  with  all  that  is  said  of  him 
as  one,  and  but  one  person  ?  And  as  to  the  passages  in  the  bi- 
ble, which  seem  to  imply  that  there  is  but  one  supieme  God, 
Would  it  not  be  far  more  easy  to  devise  some  plausible  way  to 
reconcile  them  with  the  suggested  hypothesis,  than  it  can  be 
to  find  any  way  to  reconcile  all  scripture  with  your  present 
theory  ? 

It  is  further  to  be  considered,  that  Trinitarians  have  gene- 
rally denied,  that  there  is  more  than  one  being  essentially  di- 
vine. They  have  generally  spoken  of  God  as  but  one  being,  and 
yet  as  three  persons.  Can  you.  Sir,  give  any  good  reason  for 
this  ?  Are  not  the  terms  persoyi  and  being  in  such  a  sense  syn- 
onymous, that  it  would  be  just  as  consistent  to  say  there  are 
three  beings  in  one  person,  as  it  is  to  say  there  are  three  per- 
sons in  one  being  ?  Would  not  this  altera.tion  also  serve  to  make 
your  whole  theory  more  consistent  with  itself?  For  it  is  an  es- 
sential thing  in  your  theory,  that  Jesus  Christ  is  both  God  and 
man  in  one  person.  Here  then  you  have  two  beings  in  one  per- 
son. And  by  what  rule  can  you  have  in  one  part  of  your  theory 
three  persons  in  one  being,  and  in  another  part  of  it  tivo  beings 
in  one  pernon  ?  Can  these  things  so  hold  together  as  to  be  con- 
sidered eternal  truth  of  the  highest  importance  for  all  to  re- 
ceive ?  The  design  of  these  queries  is  to  lead  you  and  others 
lo  reflect  on  that  arbitrary,  and  improper  use  of  words  ivithonC 
knowledge,  by  which  it  appears  to  me,  that  multitudes  have 
been  misled  to  the  unspeakable  injury  of  our  holy  religion, 
5 


so 


LETTER  XI. 

On  (lie  insupt'iabic  tlinRcuUies  in  respect  to  the    supposed  coiijples  character  of 

Christ, 
Sir, 

It  is  very  evident,  that  the  truth  of  your  theory  in  ques- 
tion very  much  depends  on  the  correctness  of  the  hypothesis, 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  both  God  and  man  in  one  complex  person  ; 
but  in  respect  to  this  supposed  union  I  find  insuperable  diffi- 
culties. You  will,  I  think,  reidily  admit,  that  if  "a  being,  pos- 
sessed of  all  divine  perfections,"  and  a  proper  man,  possessed 
of  soul  and  body,  are  not  united  as  one  person  in  our  Lord,  then 
the  Nvhole  triune  doctrine  must  be  without  any  good  foundation. 
This  then  is  a  point,  which  demands  very  careful  examination. 
And  on  what,  Sir,  does  the  hypothesis,  now  in  question,  rest  ? 
Is  it  not  of  such  an  extraordinary  character,  that  we  should  not 
receive  it  without  finding  it  supported  by  the  most  explicit  and 
positive  testimony  ?  But  where  shall  such  testimony  be  found  ? 
You  will  say,  "  Jesus  Christ  is  called  God,  and  is  also  called  a 
man."  Yes,  Sir,  and  are  not  many  other  beings  in  scripture 
called  Gods  ?  And  is  not  Jehovah  himself  oalled  a  ;?;a?z,  "  a  man 
of  ivar  ?"  Is  it  not  very  vuisafe  in  many  cases  to  give  the  strong- 
est sense  to  such  words  as  are  used  in  the  bible  I  And  should 
\vc  not  always  avoid  this,  rather  than  to  admit  a  great  absurdity 
as  a  revealed  truth  ?  Now  permit  me  to  ask  seriously,  whether 
it  be  possible  to  form  a  more  extravagant,  or  a  more  monstrous 
supposition,  than  to  suppose  that  three  divine  persons  and  one 
proper  man  are  all  so  united,  as  to  constitute  but  one  and  the 
same  individual  being  ?  Is  not  this  more  than  mystery  ?  Is  it 
not  the  very  height  of  absurdity  ?  And  can  it  be  that  we  are  re- 
quired to  believe  any  such  thing  as  gospel  truth,  without  such 
testimony,  as  cannot  be  found  in  the  bible  ?  Again,  I  ask,  se- 
riously, is  it  not  in  the  nature  of  things  impossible,  that  any  two 
persons  should  become  so  united  as  to  constitute  but  one  per- 
son ?  Is  there  any  thing  in  the  whole  field  of  analogy  to  fiivour 
this  notion  I  Is  it  not  coiitrary  to  every  dictate  of  reason  and 
common  sense  ?  Is  it  not  totally  inconsistent  with  every  idea  we 
can  form  of  personal  properties  ?  And  is  it  not  as  much  a  pal- 
pable contradiction  to  say,  that  two  beings  may  be  so  united  as 
to  constitute  but  one  person,  as  it  would  be  to  say,  that  one  and 
the  same  being  may  cease  to  exist,  and  yet  continue  to  exist  at 
the  same  time  ? 

Moreover,  if  it  be  true  that  Christ  is  both  God  and  man,  or  if 
it  be  true  that  "a  being  possessed  of  all  divine  perfections"  is 
so  united  to  another  being  possessed  of  all  the  properties  of  a 
man,  as  to  constitute  but  one  person,  then  must  it  not  unavoid- 
ably follow,  that  one  part  of  this  person  was  perfectly  indepen- 
dent, while  the  other  wa§  absolutely  dependent  ?  That  one  part 


of  this  person  was  almighty,  while  the  other  was  feeble  ?  That  one 
part  of  tMs  person  knew  all  things,  while  the  other  knew  com- 
paratively nothing-?  That  one  part  of  this  person  possessed  all 
things,  Avbiic  the  other  had  not  where  to  rest  ?  That  one  part  of 
this  person  felt  no  privation,  weariness,  or  want,  Vv'hile  the  oth- 
er was  subject  to  poverty,  labour,  fatigue,  hunger,  and  thirst  ? 
And  that  one  part  of  this  person  had  infinite  enjoyment,  while 
the*other  was  sorrowful  unto  death,  and  endured  the  most  ex- 
quisite torture  and  anguish  ?  Are  not  all  these,  and  other  like 
contrarieties  and  apparent  impossibilities,  necessarily  involved 
in  the  supposed  union  of  God  and  man  in  the  person  of  Christ  ? 
And  what  could  appear  more  incongruous  ?  Yea,  what  can  ap- 
pear more  impossible  than  it  is,  that  one  and  the  same  person 
should  be  able  and  not  able,  at  the  same  time,  to  do  the  same 
things  ?  Should  know  and  not  know,  at  the  same  time,  the 
same  things  ?  Should  possess  and  not  possess,  at  the  same 
time,  the  same  things  ?  Should  receive  and  not  receive,  at 
the  same  time,  the  same  things?  And  should  suffer  and  not 
sufler,  at  the  same  time^  the  same  things,  and  even  the  same 
death  ? 

But  in  respect  to  the  supposed  union  there  are  still  further, 
if  not  greater  difficulties.  By  one  of  your  late  writers  it  is  ex- 
pressly said,  that  Christ  is  "  a  being  possessed  of  all  divine  at- 
tributes."* This  is  the  testimony  of  a  Trinitarian  concerning 
Christ.  Now,  Sir,  I  ask  very  seriously,  why  did  not  some 
one  of  the  inspired  prophets  explicitly  give  the  same  testimo- 
ny concerning  the  Messiah,  ^vho  was  to  come  ?  Why  did  not 
John  the  baptist  do  the  same  ?  And,  especially,  why  did  not  "  the 
faithful  and  true  witness,"  in  some  instance,  on  some  occasion, 
explicitly  give  the  same  testimony  concerning  himself?  As  he 
appeared  "in  fashion  as  a  man  ''  and  "a  prophet  like  unto  Mo- 
ses," it  certainly  was  not  very  natural  for  him  to  be  taken  for 
"  a  being  possessed  of  all  divine  perfections,"  without  some  very 
explicit  testimony,  and  very  positive  evidence  to  this  purpose. 
This,  it  should  seem,  Avas  the  less  to  be  expected,  because  the 
great  lawgiver,  on  whom  the  Jews  had  great  reliance,  had  only 
said,  "A  prophet  shall  the  Lord  your  God  raise  up  unto  you  of 
your  brethren  like  unto  me.""  In  view  of  this  and  other  pro- 
phetic testimony  of  like  import,  was  it  to  be  expected  that  any, 
who  saw  and  heard  "  Jesus  of  Nazareth  "  would  acknowledge 
him  in  the  character  of  "  a  being  possessed  of  all  divine  per- 
fections," without  the  most  explicit  and  positive  assurance  of 
this  fact  ?  Why  then  did  not  our  Lord,  who  "  for  this  end  was 
born,  and  for  this  purpose  came  into  the  world  to  bear  witness 
to  the  truth,"  why  did  he  not  on  some  occasion  as  plainly  ex- 
press his  own  "essential  divinity  "  as  Trinitarians  do  now  ?  Yea, 

*  See  the  Review,  before  quoted,  in  several  places. 


32 

why  did  he  say  so  many  things  of  very  contrary  import  without  ut- 
tering, at  any  time,  one  sentence  to  prevent  what  you  consider 
such  a  dreadful  mistake  as  those  are  under,  who  do  not  own  and 
worship  him  as  "God,  possessing  all  divine  attributes  ?"  Why 
did  he  so  often  speak  of  himself  as  "the  Son  of  a  man,"  and  never 
m  u  single  instance  assume  to  liimself  any  hi[!;her  character  than 
that  of  "the  Son  of  God  ?''  As  you  suppose  he  was  really  man 
as  well  as  God,  it  is  granted,  that  it  is  in  a  sense  consistent  with 
your  views,  tHat  we  should  find  liim  speaking  of  himself  as  "  the 
Son  of  man;''  but  as,  according  to  your  theory,  it  was  un- 
speakably more  important  that  he  should  be  known  as  "the  true 
God,"  how  can  you  account  for  it,  that  he  never  did  so  much  as 
once  explicitly  give  any  such  testimony  ?  Among  his  sayings 
there  are  many,  very  many  things,  which  you  would  say  he 
spake  as  a  man.  But  where  are  those  things,  whicJi  lie 
spake  as  God  ?  If  he  was  as  really  God  as  man,  he  must  hiLve 
spoken,  we  shnnjd  think,  at  least  somvtimcs^  in  hii  highest  char- 
acter. But  can  you,  Sir, point  to  a  single  instance,  in  which  he 
spake  as  no  one  less  than  "a  being  possessed  of  all  divine  at- 
tributes" could  speak?  Certainly  I  have  no  knovvledge  of  any 
such  thing  in  his  whole  testimony.  In  his  discourses,  I  often 
find  such  things,  as  it  appears  to  me  "  a  being  possessed  of  all 
divine  attributes"  could  not  say  ;  but  not  one,  which  a  being, 
who  had  received  his  all  from  God,  could  not  say  with  truth 
and  propriety.^  I  have  further  to  ask,  why  our  Lord  was  not 
careful  to  let  it  be  distinctly  known  when  he  spake  as  a  man, 
and  when  he  spake  as  God  ?  According  to  your  views  one 
would  think  it  must  have  been  essential  to  his  acting  in  char- 
acter as  "  the  faithful  and  true  witness,"  to  have  marked  ycry 
explicitly  such  an  important  distinction.  When  in  one  of  his 
epistles  the  apostle  Paul  said  some  things  by  divine  inspiration, 
and  others  of  his  own  judgment,  he  was  very  careful  to  let  his 
readers  know  what  they  must  receive  as  divine,  and  what  as  his 
own  testimony.  Now,  Sir,  if  our  Lord  had  been  really  God  and 
man,  speaking  sometimes  in  one  character,  and  at  other  times 
in  the  other  character,  would^he  not  have  been  as  careful  to 
mark  this  very  important  distinction  to  the  clear  understand- 
ing of  all  men,  as  Paul  was  to  do,  as  just  stated  ?  And  seeing 
this  faithful  witness  never  did,  on  any  occasion,  give  any  inti- 
mation, that  he  ever  spake  otherwise  than  as  one  sent  by  his 
Father  and  dependent  on  him,  is  there  not  great  reason  to  be- 
lieve that  your  doctrine  is  not  founded  in  truth  ? 

But  what  is,  in  my  view,  the  greatest  difliculty  in  respect  to 
the  supposed  union  of  two  beings  in  the  person  of  Christ,  is 
yet  to  be  urged.  Is  it  not,  Sir,  utterly  impossible  for  "a  being 
possessed  of  all  divine  attributes"  to  be  so  united  with  an  infe- 
rior being,  as  to  make  it  consistent  with  truth  for  him  to  say 
such  things,  as  run  through  the  whole  testimony  of  our  Lord  ? 


53 

Yovl  certainly  will  not  deny,  that  immutability  is  one  of  the  at- 
tributes or  perfections  essential  to  the  character  of  the  true, 
God.  Does  it  not  then  unavoidably  follow,  that  if  our  Lord 
•was  ever  "possessed  of  all  divine  attributes"  he  continued  to 
have  all  the  same  attributes  when  "  he  was  made  of  the  seed 
of  David  accordinfj  to  the  flesh  r"  His  union  v/ith  a  body  pre- 
pared for  him,  or  his  taking,  as  you,  I  conclude,  suppose  he  did, 
a  htunan  soul  and  body  into  personal  union  with  his  divinityj 
could  in  no  degree  take  away,  exclude,  or  diminish  any  of  his 
"  divine  perfections."  How  then  could  it  be  consistent  with 
truth  for  him  to  say,  "  My  Father  is  greater  than  I."  "I  can 
of  mine  own  self  do  nothing."  "  The  Son  can  do  nothing  of 
himself,  '  "  The  living  Father  hath  sent  me,  and  I  live  by  the 
Father  I"  How,  Sir,  could  "  a  being,  possessiiig  all  divine  at- 
tributes" truly  say  these  and  many  other  things  of  like  import  ? 
I  know  very  well,  that  the  common  reply  to  such  queries  is, 
"  he  said  such  things  as  a  man."  But,  Sir,  his  being  in  the 
sense  that  you  suppose  a  man,  does  not  alter  the  fact  in  respect 
to  his  divine  attributes  "  Suppose  it  had  bceii  the  "  one  God 
the  Father,  who  had  taken  a  man  into  the  highest  possible 
union  with  himself,  could  this  have  made  it  consistent  v.'ith 
truth  for  him  to  have  said,  "  The  Son  is  greater  than  /,"  "I 
can  of  myself  do  nothing."  "The  Father  can  do  nothing  of 
himself?"  Do  you  not  at  once  perceive  that  nothing  more  in- 
consistent could  be  imagined  ?  But  if  in  the  highest  possible 
union  with  a  man  the  almighty  Father  would  continue  as  al- 
mighty as  ever,  why  must  it  not  have  been  exactly  so  with 
another  person  "  essentially  equal  to  the  Father"  in  the  same 
supposed  union,  with  a  man  ?  Again,  if  the  eternal  Father 
should  take  any  man  into  the  highest  possible  union  with  him- 
self, can  you  conceive  that  the  man  so  united  to  God  could 
need  at  any  time  any  such  supply,  us  would  not  naturally,  and 
even  iieceasarily  result  from  his  union  with  Deity  ?  Or  can  you 
conceive  that  a  man  so  united  to  the  almighty  Father  could  pos- 
sibly have  any  occasion  to  pray  to  any  other  divine  person  under 
any  possible  circumstances  whatever  ?  How  then  on  your  own 
ground  do  you  account  for  it,  that  the  man  Christ  Jesus  was  so 
much  a  man  of  prayer,  addressing  all  his  petitions  invariably 
to  the  Father  ?  I  conclude  you  will  by  no  means  say,  that  our 
Lord,  in  his  character  as  "a  being  possessed  of  all  divine  attri- 
butes," had  any  occasion  to  pray.  It  wjs,  you  undoubtedly  hold, 
only  in  his  character  as  a  man,  that  he  did  or  could  jiray.  For 
"  God  cannot  deny  himself."  But  still  the  great  question  is, 
why  our  Lord  had,  even  in  his  character  as  a  man,  any  occasion 
to  pray  ?  Were  not  "  all  divine  perfections"  enough  to  supply 
all  his  need  as  a  man  ?  Or,  in  other  words,  what  could  his  sup- 
posed human  nature  ever  need,  which  his  supposed  divine  na- 
ture could  not  always  supply  ?  What  occasion  then  could  Christ 


54 

have  at  any  time  lo  ask  any  thing  of  the  Father  ?  Yea,  how  was 
it  even  possible  for  him  to  receive  any  thing  from  the  Father  ? 
Having  within  himself  "all  divine  perfections,"  what  could  be 
given  even  for  his  supposed  human  nature,  which  he  did  not 
already  possess?  Is  there  not  enough  in  one  "being  possessed 
of  all  divine  attributes''  to  iiil  millions  of  millions  of  human 
souls  with  all  that  they  could  possibly  receive,  and  yet  would 
not  the  fountain  ovei Jlow  as  much  as  ever  ?  Admitting  then  that 
one  human  soul  was  in  the  highest  possible  manner  united  to 
*'  a  being  possessed  of  all  divine  perfections,"  how  coviid  this 
render  it  possible  for  thut  same  "  being  essentially  divine"  to 
Jiave  in  any  sense,"  all  judgment  committed  unto  him  ?  Or  to 
have  in  any  sense  "  the  spirit  without  measure  gi-uen  unto 
liim  V  Or  to  have  in  any  sense  "  all  power  given  unto  him  in 
heaven  and  on  earth  ?"  And  above  all,  how  could  the  supposed 
union  of  a  human  soul  with  "  a  being  possessed  of  all  divine  at- 
tributes" rcnder'lt  possible  for  that  same  "  being  essentially 
divine"  to  need  at  any  time,  in  any  sense,  "  An  angel  from 
HEAVEN  TO  sTiiENGTHEN  HIM  ?"  And  how  could  the  Same  be-, 
ing,  with  all  his  divine  perfections,  be  brought  into  a  situation, 
in  which  he  could  Avith  propriety  say,  "  My  God,  my  God, 
■vvRY  HAST  THOU  FORSAKEN  ME?"  Now,  Sir,  in  vicw  of  thesc 
things,  can  you  avoid  seeing  that  the  whole  history  of  our 
Lord  is  exceedingly  fictitious  and  hyperbolical,  or  that  he  is 
not,  as  has  been  so  confidently  affirmed,  "  a  being,  possessed 
of  all  divine  perfection,"  "  essentially  equal  to  the  Father?" 

LETTER  XIL 

Au  attempt  to  sliew,  that  nothing  is  gained  by  ascribing  supreme  divinity  to  ou^. 

Lord. 
Sir, 

To  me  it  appears  very  evident  that  the  supreme  divini- 
divinity,  which  Trinitarians  ascribe  to  our  Lord,  and  that  the 
distinct  personality,  which  they  ascribe  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  are 
utterly  superfluous.  By  writers  on  your  side  it  is  represented, 
that  your  doctrine  is  the  '•  broad  foundation  of  Christianity." 
That  those,  who  deny  it,  trust  in  an  arm  of  flesh,"  and  have  "  no 
God,  no  Saviour,  no  Comforter."*  But  why  all  this  reproach  ? 
Is  not  one  divine  agent,  or  one  person,  possessed  of  all  divine 
attributes,  as  sxifficient  for  the  government  of  the  universe  as 
any  number  of  such  persons  could  be  ?  Could  a  plurality  of 
such  persons  eflfect,  or  accomplish  any  thing,  which  cannot  be 
done  by  one  person  of  unbounded  perfection  ?  And  is  not  the 
highest  interest  of  the  universe  as  safe  in  the  hands,  and  under 
the  management  of  one  such  person  as  it  could  be  in  the  hands 
and  under  the  management  of  more  than  one  ? 

*  See  an  address  to  the  churc+ies  by  the  General  Associalioa  of  N.  Hampshire. 


35 

In  particular  as  it  respects  the  salvation  of  lost  rnen,  wliat 
could  be  effected  for  our  real  benefit  by  three  divine  persons, 
which  cannot  be  effected  by  the  almighty  power,  infinite  wis- 
dom, and  unbounded  goodness  of  one  scU-e:;istent  almighty 
agent  ?  Could  not  one  such  agent,  v/ithout  any  to  counsel  him, 
devise  the  most  perfect  plan  foi'  our  recovery  fi-om  sin  and 
woe,  to  holiness  and  felicity  ?  Could  not  one  such  person  pro* 
vide  the  necessary  Mediator,  furnish  him  with  all  the  necessa- 
ry cpialifications,  give  all  the  requisite  authority,  and  grant  to 
him  all  the  needful  aid  to  enable  him  to  go  thvough  all  the  work 
of  our  redemption  ?  Could  not  one  such  person  also  provide  all 
the  means,  and  all-  the  requisite  instruments  to  carry  into  effect 
his  saving  purpose  ?  And  could  not  one  such  person  likewise 
*'  pour  out"  or  "  shed  forth"  enough  of  "  His  Spirit"  to  render 
the  provided  means  effectual  to  the  renovation,  sanctlficationj 
consolation,  and  salvation  of  all  those,  who  shull  finally  inherit 
his  everlasting  kingdom?  Can  this  be  denied?  Or  can  it  even 
be  pretended,  that  three  divine  persons  could  inore  easily ^  or  in 
any  respect  better  accomplish  all  that  has  been  mentioned, 
than  it  could  be  done  by  one  self- existent,  almighty  agent? 
If  not,  then  so  far  as  we  can  see,  is  not  the  essential  divinity, 
which  you  ascribe  to  our  Lord,  and  is  not  the  distinct  personali- 
ty, which  you  ascribe  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  utterly  supeiHuous  ? 

I  know,  however,  that  it  is  often  represented  that  a  Media- 
tor without  supreme  divinity  is  not  a  proper  object  of  trust 
and  confidence  for  such  guilty,  needy  creatures  as  we  are.  It 
is  often  said,  that  no  one  less  than  a  person  essentially  divine 
could  make  the  necessary  atonement  for  sin,  or  be  worthy  to  be 
trusted  with  the  keeping  of  our  souls.  But  who  is  the  best 
and  the  only  adequate  judge  in  respect  to  the  attributes,  v/ith- 
out  which  a  proper  atonement  could  not  be  made  ?  Are  v/e  to 
set  up  our  own  jvidgment  as  to  what  was  requisite  in  this  case, 
and  then  infer  from  it  what  is  the  character  of  real  [Mediator? 
Should  we  not  rather  consider,  that  the  Most  High  himself  was 
the  only  proper  person  to  decide  hov/  much  should  be  done  and 
suffered  by  way  of  atonement  ?  And  should  we  not  search  the 
scriptures  to  see  what  they,  in  their  ovt'n  simplicity,  testify  of 
Christ  ;  not  having  prepared  ourselves  by  our  own  foolish 
reasonings  to  misunderstand,  or  to  pervert  divine  testimony? 
Besides,  what  is  the  real  amount  of  gain  in  respect  to  the 
atonement,  resulting  from  the  Trinitarian  view  of  Christ  ?. 
Earnestly  as  you  all  contend,  that  he  is  the  true  God,  yet  do 
any  of  you  believe,  that  as  God,  in  the  highest  sense,  he  really 
suffered  for  our  redemption  ?  One  of  your  late  writers  says, 
"  We  hold  Jesus  Christ  to  be  God  and  man  united  in  one  per- 
son, and  that  this  one  com/ilcx  person  suffered  and  died.  We 
do  not  say  that  the  ever  blessed  God  separately  from  man  suf- 


36 

fered  and  died,  but  v/c  do  say  that  Jesus  Christ  as  God  and 
mmi  in  one  person  did  suffer  and  die.'"'*  Now,  Sir,  are  not 
tiiese  words  without  knowledge  I  And  would  the  author  just 
quoted,  or  would  you,  after  all,  allow  "  that  the  ever  blessed 
God"  did  sufier  in  any  real  sense  or  degree  to  make  atonement 
for  sin  ?  This  may  not  be  preduuied.  It  must  then  iollow  after 
all  that  has  been  or  can  be  said  about  "God  and  man  in  one 
complex  person,"  according-  to  your  own  theory,  that  all  the 
real  suffering  for  our  offences  was  endured  by  that  part  of  the 
supposed  "  complex  person,"  which  was  "  the  oti'spring  of  Da- 
vid, '  and  had  no  existence  until  about  the  time  of  Augustus 
Csesar.  Such  is  the  simple  fact  in  respect  to  the  point  now 
in  question,  as  no  Trinitarian  can  fairly  deny.  But  how  differ- 
ent, how  exceedingly  difterent  is  that,  which  to  me  appears  to 
be  the  true  scripture  representation  as  to  what  has  been  done 
and  suffered  for  our  salvation  !  "The  Word,  who  was  in  the 
beginning  with  God  was  made  flesh," — the  "  Son,  by  whom 
God  iTiade  the  worlds"  "  was  made  of  the  seed  of  David  ac- 
coiding  to  the  flesh"  by  taking  "a  body  prepared  for  him" 
"  and  being  found  in  fashion  as  a  man,  humbled  himself  and 
became  obedient  unto  death,  even  the  death  of  the  cross  !"  In 
this  high  sense  "God  spared  not  his  own  Son;  but  freely  de- 
livered him  up  for  us  all."  Yes,  "though  he  were  a  Son," 
"  the  Son  of  the  Highest,"  "  brought  forth"  "  and  set  up  from 
everlasting,"  "he  learned  obedience  by  the  things,  which  HE 
suffered,''  "  giving  HIMSELF  for  us."  "  The  only  begotten, 
■who  was  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,"  "  loved  before  the  foun- 
dation of  the  world"  "  came  forth  from  the  Fathei',  and  came 
into  the  world"  "in  the  form  of  a  servant"  and  died  for  our  of- 
fences." "  The  Lord  from  heaven,"  who  "  had  glory  with  the 
Father  before  the  world  was,"  became  poor  for  our  sakes," 
"and  suffered  the  just  for  Jie  unjust  to  bring  us  unto  God." 
"  The  Son  of  the  Father  in  truth  and  love,"  ''  the  brightness  of 
his  glory  and  the  express  image  of  his  person,"  through  whom 
"God  was  manifested  in  the  flesh,"  and  unto  whom  was  given 
"  the  Spirit  not  by  measure,"  >vas  "  set  forth  to  be  a  propitiation 
through  faith  in  his  blood."  Such,  Sir,  is  the  view  entertained 
of  "Christ  as  our  passover  sacrificed  for  us,"  by  men,  who  are 
charged  with  a  denial  "  of  the  Lord,  who  bought  them."  And 
can  this  view  of  the  subject  be  fairly  coinpared  with  your  own, 
whthout  producing  conv'ction  in  your  own  nund,  that  as  it  re- 
spects the  atonement  made  for  our  sins,  that  essential  divinity, 
■which  you  ascribe  to  our  Lord,  is  useless,  and  far  more  than 
useless  ?  And  is  it  not  in  respect  to  the  whole  Avork  of  the 
Mediator  between  God  and  men  ?  For  while  you  ascribe  to 
Christ  the  character  of  the   true  God,  can   you  say  that  in  any 

•  Review  bef'jrc  quoted,  p.  45. 


37 

part  of  this  character  he  is  a  Mediator  bettveen  God  and  us; 
or  that  he  is  as  God  "  our  hlj^h  Priest,  entered  into  the  hea- 
vens fur  us;  or  that  he  is  as  God  our  "  advocate  with  the  Fa- 
ther ?"  In  short,  is  it  not  utterly  impossible  for  you  to  point  out 
any  thing,  which  Christ,  as  the  true  God.,  has  either  reall'^  suf- 
fered, or  really  done,  for  tlie  salvation  of  mankind  ?  And  by  as- 
cribing- "  all  divine  perfections"  to  our  Lord,  do  you  not  theoret- 
ically make  the  one  Mediator,  our  hi;j;h  priest  in  the  heaveas-  our 
advocate  with  the  Father,  and  our  exalted  Prince  and  Saviour, 
07ilij  the  humun  part  of  a  supposed  complex  person,  instead  of 
"  the  first  born  of  every  creature,"  "  the  Lord  from  heaven," 
who,  consenting  to  the  arduous  work  of  our  redemption,  long- 
before  his  incarnation,  said,  "  Lo,  I  come  to  do  thy  will,  O 
God, — a  body  hast  thou  prepared  me  ?  ' 

But  will  you,  after  all,  contend,  that  in  your  supposed  "  God 
and  man  in  one  person"  you  have  a  more  safe  object  of  trust 
and  confivience  than  can  be  found  by  those,  who  deny  your  the- 
ory ?  I  ask,  then,  wherein  is  your  real  highest  object  of  trust 
different  from  ours  ?  Do  you  not  habitually  and  really  view 
Jesus  Christ  as  "the  way  to  the  Father,"  and  "  come  to  God  by 
him  ?"  And  have  you  even  theoretically,  an  ioia  more  in  the 
God,  to  whom  you  come  through  the  one  Mediator,  than 
we  find  in  the  "  one  God  the  Father  ?"  Are  not  all  divine  attri- 
butes the  sum  total  of  of  your  theoretical  ultimate  foundation 
of  hope  and  confidence  ?  And  can  you  avoid  seeing,  that  we 
have  precisely  the  same  ultimate  foundation  ?  Viewing  the 
blessed  Jesus  as  "  the  Son,"  whom  the  Father  sent  to  be  the 
Saviour  of  the  world,"  viewing  him  as  "  the  Lord  from  hea- 
ven," who  was  made  a  partaker  of  "  flesh  and  blood,"  and  tast- 
ed death  for  us,''  and  viewing  him  as  one,  in  whom  "  it  hath 
pleased  the  Father  that  all  fulness  should  dwell,"  we  hold  him 
as  a  Saviouv  mighty  to  save  to  the  uttermost,  all,  who  come  un- 
to God  by  him."  Aiid  if  we  do  truly  come  to  the  Father  through 
the  mediation  of  his  Son,  have  we  not  then,  in  as  high  a  sense  as 
you  have,  ail  divine  perfections  to  rest  on  for  the  accomplish- 
ment of  all  our  salvation  and  all  our  desire  ?  In  short,  is  it  not 
all  that  we  or  you  or  any  others  can  need,  to  have  God  for  our 
Saviour  through  Jesus  Christ  ?  And  is  not  all  the  foundation 
the  bible  gives  for  your  triune  theory  very  clearly  and  beauti- 
fully comprized  in  the  epistle  of  Paul  to  Titus,  where  he  rep- 
resents that  "  GOD  OUR  SAVIOUR  hath  saved  us  by  the 
washing  of  regeneration,  and  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
which  HE  shed  on  us  abundantly  through  Jesus  Chuist  our 
Saviour  ?" 

6 


38 


LETTER  XIII. 

0:i  the  hariHonj-  of  Uiviiie  testimony  without  involving  the  supreme  divinity  of 
Christ.     And  the  coiiclusioi). 

SiR, 

It  appears  to  me,  that  all,  which  the  scriptures  testify  of 
Christ,  may  be  very  easily  and  fairly  accounted  for,  without  in- 
volving any  such  apparent  inconsistencies  and  perplexities,  as 
are  involved  in  your  theory.  1  do  not,  however,  mean  to  in- 
clude in  what  the  scriptures  testify  of  Christ,  all  that  you  and 
others  apply  to  him.  For  the  Bible  is  so  evidently  destitute  of 
any  thing,  which  is  explicit  and  peremptory  to  your  purpose, 
that  your  v.riters  apply  to  our  Lord  a  number  of  passages, 
vv-hich,  as  I  believe,  have  no  such  meaning  as  they  give  them, 
and  which  they  could  quite  as  easily,  and  more  naiurally  con- 
strue otherwise,  if  this  would  as  well  answer  their  purpose. 
As  a  specimen  of  such  unfairness  I  vv'ill  mention  one  instance, 
and  attempt  to  shew  hov/  easily  the  text,  to  which  I  refer,  may 
he  tak.cn  fiom  you.  In  the  first  ep'stle  of  John,  the  fifth  chapter 
and  twentieth  verse,  as  your  writers  represent,  our  Lord  is  call- 
ed "  the  true  God."  Now,  Sir,  ought  it  not  to  have  been  re- 
membered, that  the  same  inspired  writer  has  elsewhere  expli- 
citly taught  us  that  the  Father  is  "  the  only  true  God  ?"  And  can 
there  be  a  more  palpable  contradiction  devised,  than  to  say  of 
one  person,  that  he  is  "  the  orUy  true  God,  and  yet  of  another 
person,  that  he  is  "  the  true  God  V  Should  any  inspired  writer 
be  considered  as  having  intended  to  affirm  such  opposite  propo- 
sitions \vithout  giving  any  reason  or  explanation  ?  But  this 
is  not  all.  By  the  same  rule  that  John  is  m.ade  to  say,  that 
Christ  is  the  true  God,  he  would  be  made  to  say,  that  our  Lord 
is  a  deceiver  and  an  antichrist.  The  whole  verse,  in  which  the 
words  "  the  true  God"  are  found,  in  our  common  translations 
stand  thus,  "  And  we  know,  that  the  Son  of  God  is  come,  and 
hath  given  us  an  understanding,  that  we  might  know  him,  that 
is  true  ;  and  \vc  are  in  him,  that  is  true,  even  in  his  Son  Jesus 
Christ.  This  is  the  true  God  and  eternal  life."  Now,  Sir, 
please  to  look  at  the  seventh  verse  of  the  second  epistle  of  John. 
"For  many  deceivers  are  gone  into  the  world,  who  confess  not 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh.  This  is  a  deceiver  and 
an  antichrist.''  Do  you  not  at  once  see,  that  an  inspired  writer 
has  been  very  unfairly  treated,  to  carry  a  point  ?  By  making  the 
word  "  This''  in  the  first  case  refer  to  Jesus  Christ  last  men- 
tioned, instead  of  tettint^  it  refer  "  to  him  that  is  true,"  the  text 
is  made  to  say,  that  Christ  is  the  true  God.  Apply  the  same 
rule  in  the  other  case,  and  make  the  word  "  i  liis"  refer  to 
the  lust  instead  of  the  foregoing-  noun,  and  the  beloved  disciplf 


39 

is  as  fairly  made  to  say,  that  his  beloved  Lord  is  <^  a  deceiver 
and  an  antichrist,"  as  many  have  made  him  say,  that  Christ  is 
the  t>-ue  God.  Is  it  not  a  bad  cause,  which  requires  such  per- 
version of  divine  testimony  for  its  support ;  or  which  hurries 
its  advocates  to  apply  scripture  as  the  inspired  writers  never 
meant,  and  as  a  little  care  by  way  of  fairly  comparing  scripture 
■with  scripture  would  prevent  ? 

I  shall  now  attempt   to  show  how  easily  and  fairly  a  number 
of  such  texts,  as  Trinitarians  build  upon,  may  be  understood  in 
agreement  with  the  doctrine,  that  "To  us  there  is  but  one  God 
the  Father,  by  whom  are  all  things,  and  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
through  whom  are  all  things."     Does  the  Prophet  Isaiah  in  the 
name,  by  which  he  says  the  Messiah  should  be  ''called"  include 
"  the  mighty  God,  the  everlasting  Father  ?"  It  is  however  to  be 
considered,  that  he  has  first  said  "unto  us    a  child   is  born,  and 
unto  us  a   iion  i.'i  given."     Now  a   son  is  a  son   still,  whatever 
names  may  be  given  him.     Any  son  may  have  his  father's  names 
and   titles  ;   yet  he  remains  a  son  and  a  distinct  being  from  his 
father.      Besides,  our  Lord  is    in  fact  the  mighty  God  and   the 
everlasting  Father  of  his  people  when   compared  with    Moses 
and  many  others,  who  have    iDcen  called  gods   and  fathers    to 
mankind.      Is  Christ   again  in   the  first  of  John's  gospel  called 
God  ?  In  the  same   connexion  he   is  clearly  distinguished  from 
the  supreme  God,  by  being  called  the  "Word,  who  was  in  the 
beginning  with  God;"  and  by  his  being  designated  as  a  person, 
whose  glory  is  that  "  of  the  only  begotten  of  the  Father."     Is 
he  likewise   called   God  in  the   first  chapter  to  the  Hebrcv»s  ' 
There   also   he    is  clearly    distinguished  from    the  Most    High, 
who,  unto  the    Son   saith,  "thy  throne   O  God  is  forever  and 
ever — God  even  THY  GOD  hath  anointed  Thee."     And  in  the 
same  connexion    Christ  is  spoken    of  as  having  "by  inheriiaticf 
a  more    excellent   name    than   the   angels,"  and   this   reason  is 
given,  'For  unto  which  of   the  angels  hath  God  said,  "Thou  art 
my  son,    this  day    have    Ibegotten    Thee  ?■'     Is    our    Lord    in 
another  place    spoken  of  as  "over  all,  God  blessed  forever  V  If 
this  text,  as  we  have  it,  is  correctly  rendered,  yet  where  is  the 
difficulty,  seeing  that  Christ  has  said  "  all  power  is  given  unto 
me   in   heaven   and    in  earth  ;"  and  it  is   further  written,  that 
"God  hath   made   him  to  be  the   head  over  all  things   to   the 
church  ?"   Is  he  further  spoken  of  as  one,  "  who,  being  in  the 
form  of  God  thought  it  not   robbery  to  be   equal    with  God  ?" 
Who  can  say,  that  the  word  equal  is  so   much  as  once   used  in 
the   bible  to  express  a  perfect,  absolute  equality  ?  In  the  same 
sense    as  Ahithophel   was  David's  equals  so  the   word  equal  in 
the  text  just  quoted  may  be  fairly  understood.     Will  you  urge, 
that   the  Jews,  on   one   occasion,   understood    Christ   to    make 
himself  God,  or  equal  with  God  ?  If  so,  you  would  do  well  to 


40 

look  carefully  cit  the  closing  part  of  the  reply,  which  our  Lorci 
made  to  repel  the  groundless  objection  of  the  Jews,  "  Say  yc 
of  him,  whom  the  Father  hath  sauctiSed  and  sent  into  the 
world,  "thou  blasphemest  because  I  said  t  am  the  Son  of 
G'.D  ?"  Did  our  Lord  say  to  his  disciples,  "  He  that  hath  seen 
me  hath  acen  the  Father?"  So,  in  the  first  chapter  to  the  Ro- 
mans, Paul  says,  "  The  invisible  things  of  him,  from  the  creation 
of  the  world,  are  clearly  seen,  being  understood  by  the  things 
that  are  made,  even  his  eternal  power  and  godhead.''  Does 
Jesus  say,  "  that  all  men  sh.ould  honour  the  Son,  even  as  they 
hoi^our  the  Father  ?  At  the  same  time  he  assigns  this  reason 
for  it,  namely,  "the  Fulhcr  hath  ccrmnitted  ah  judgment  unto 
the  Son."  If  we  vof^ld  by  no  means  neglect  to  honour  the 
most  high  God,  v.'c  mi.st  honour  his  Son,  as  his  Son  and  his 
meastnffcr,  unto  whom  he  ha.th  committed  all  judgment.  Do 
we  in  several  instances  read  of  worship  paid  to  Christ  ?  Yet 
we  find  no  instance  of  his  being  worshipped  as  the  supreme 
God.  "When  he  bringeth  in  his  first  begotten  into  the 
world,"  he  saith,  "  and  let  all  the  angels  of  God  worship  him  !" 
Worship  Mhom  ?  "  The  first  begotten."  The  v/ise  men 
from  the  east  are  said  to  have  worshipped  the  young  child 
Jesus  ;  but  it  was  in  the  character  of  one  "born  king  of  the 
Jews."  In  the  visions  of  the  revelator,  the  heavenly  millions 
are  represented  as  worshipping  more  than  one  being  Rut 
how  different  is  their  worship  from  that  of  Trinitarians  ?  They 
ascribe  "blessing  and  glory  and  honour  unto  him,  who  sitteth 
on  the  throne  and  unto  the  LAMB  f/iat  nvas  slal?7,''—^^  unto  GOD 
and  the  LAMB."  Should  every  knee  bend  at  the  name  of  Je- 
sus ?  Yes,  because  that  'God  hath  highly  exalted  him,  and 
hath  given  him  a  name,  which  is  above  every  name," 
therefore  "  at  the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should  bow  and 
every  tongue  confess,  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,  to  the  glory  of 
God  the  Father.'''  Does  Jesus  say,  "  I  am  the  first  and  the 
last  ?"  he  also  adds,  '^  I  am  he  that  liveth  and  was  dead."  And 
certainly  he  was  neither  before,  nor  is  he  above  his  Father. 
But  he  is  the  first  and  the  last  iis  there  is  no  other  name  under 
heaven  given  among  men,  whereby  we  must  be  saved  "  Do 
the  scriptures  in  some  instances  ascribe  the  work  of  creation 
to  Christ  ?  Yes,  and  also  inform  us,  that  "God  huth  made  all 
things  by  Jesus  Christ."  In  like  manner  they  ascribe  the  same 
things  to  God  and  to  bis  servant  Moses,  and  the  same  tliings  to 
Solomon,  and  to  those  employed  by  him  in  building  ilic  Icniple. 
Is  the  Son  of  God  spoken  of  as  a  being  "  upholding  all  things 
by  the  vord  of  his  power  ?"  At  the  same  time  we  are  taught, 
that  "  all  fionvcr  is  gi-ven  unto  him.''''  Likewise  as  to  all  the 
knowledge,  and  wisdom,  and  every  thing  he  possesses,  is  it  not 
enough,  that  we  are  exprcsidy  told,  that  "  it  hath  pleased  thu 


41 

Bather  that  is  him  should  all  fulness  dwell,"  "all  the  fulness  of 
the  godhead."  Shall  it  be  disputed,  whether  it  were  possible 
for  God  to  communicate  what  his  word  declares  that  he  has 
communicated  to  his  beloved  Son  ?  Finally,  should  believers 
and  their  children  through  every  age  be  baptised  into  the  name 
of  tlie  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit?  What 
could  be  more  perlinrnt  than  this,  seeing  that  "the  one  God 
the  Father,"  through  the  "  one  Mediator,  '  is  pleased  to  "  shed 
forth''  His  Spirit  to  save  men  by  that  washing  of  regeneration, 
signified  by  christian  baptism  ?  Nnw,  Sir,  will  you  not  allow, 
that  I  have  brought  to  view  from  the  bible  the  principal 
things,  on  which  you  and  other  Trinitarians  rely  for  the  sup- 
port of  the  doctrine  in  question  ?  And  will  you  not  also  allow, 
that  the  construction,  which  I  have  given  to  such  scripture, 
appears  as  easy  and  as  fair,  as  that  usually  given  on  your  owa 
side  ?  Or,  if  you  will  not  allow  this,  may  you  not  have  reason 
to  fear,  that  it  may  be  owing  to  very  strong,  and  very  interest- 
ed prepossessions  ?  Or  admitting,  that  in  some  instances  the 
construction  I  have  given  of  divine  testimony  is  not  so  natural 
and  just,  as  it  should  be  ;  yet  is  it  not  made  clearly  evident, 
that  it  is  by  no  means  difficult  to  find  in  all,  or  in  nearly  all  that 
the  scriptures  testily  of  Christ,  some  clear,  important  meaning, 
such  as  harmonizes  with  all  other  scripture,  without  involving- 
any  such  paradox  as  that  of  two  beings  in  one  person,  or  as  that 
of  three  persons  in  one  being,  or  in  one  God."  Where  then  is 
the  necessity  of  contending  for  any  such  hypothesis?  And  by 
what  rule  can  any  such  theory  be  considered  bible  doctrine  ? 
Is  it  not  undeniable,  that  no  such  hypothesis  is  stated  in  the 
sacred  pages  ?  Yea,  and  is  it  not  undeniable,  that  the  hypothe- 
sis of  three  persons  in  one  divine  being,  and  also  that  of  two 
beings  in  the  person  of  Christ,  do  each  of  them  clash,  in  a  great 
degree,  with  the  plainest  meaning  of  very  many  passages, 
which  M'e  find  in  the  volume  of  inspiration  ?  And  can  you  de- 
ny, that  cich  of  the  just  mentioned  hypotheses  is  exceedingly 
perplexing  to  the  human  mind  ?  Or  can  you  deny,  that  they 
really  involve  a  great  portion  of  scripture  in  very  great  obscu- 
rity, and  in  many,  very  many,  apparent  contradictions  ?  Must  it 
not  be  wrong,  extremely  wrong,  thus  to  darken  sacred  counsel 
by  words  and  hypotheses  of  mere  human  device,  requiring  all 
men  to  subscribe  to  the  same,  under  heavy  pains  and  penalties  ? 
I  cannot  doubt,  that  you  and  many  other  discerning  Trinitarians 
have  at  times  felt  a  ereat  degree  of  perplexity  respecting  the 
supposed  Trinity  in  unity,  and  the  supposed  union  of  two  intel- 
ligent beings  in  the  person  of  Christ.  Yet  you  have  not  been 
willing  to  believe,  that  the  wisdom  of  men  has  been  the  sole 
origin  of  these  strange  things  !  They  have  so  long  been  con- 
sidered essentials  in  Christianity,  and  so  many  men  of  great  re- 


4£ 

nown  for  talents  and  piety  have  so  oficn  uttered  the  most  terri- 
fic denunciations  against  ail,  who  depart  from,  or  call  in  ques- 
tion the  truth  of  such  orthodoxy,  that,  as  I  believe,  all  such  in- 
quiry, as  the  case  requires,  has  been  either  wholly  prevented, 
or  rendered  very  superficial.  This  may  at  first  seem  to  you 
uncandid  and  uncharitable.  But  if  you  will  duly  consider,  and 
fairly  weigh  all  that  I  have  now  set  before  you,  I  am  persuaded 
yru  will  not  wonder,  that  it  appears  to  me  impos'  ible  for  any 
rational  creature  to  remain  a  Trinitarian  after  a  patient,  impar- 
tial, and  thorough  examination  of  the  subject.  And  I  will 
venture  to  say  moreover,  that  if  you  could  have  for  one  hour 
that  increased  delightful  view  of  the  beautiful  simplicity,  and 
perfect  harmony  of  divine  testimony,  and  thus  enhancing  view 
of  the  wonderful  love  of  God  in  really  giving  his  only  begotten 
Son,  and  of  the  astonishing  love  of  Christ  in  really  giving 
"  HIiN'iSELF  FOR  US,"  which  are  the  consequence  of  rising 
above  Trinitarian  prepossessions  and  prejudices,  you  would 
then  view  what  I  have  written,  as  a  labour  of  Jove,  and  would  be 
thankful  for  the  same  to  the  God  of  all  grace. 

The  things,  which  I  have  now  set  before  you,  are  the  fruit  of 
sober,  careful,  and  prayerful  inqui<y,  and  meditation  of  long 
continuance  ;  and  I  earnestly  entreat  you  not  to  pass  them 
ever  in  haste,  and  not  to  lay  them  aside  in  displeasure.  Be 
entreated  to  let  these  things  occupy  jour  attention,  until  you 
shall  have  duly  weighed  each  argument  separately,  and  the 
whole  collectively,  as  in  the  balances  of  the  sanctuary,  and  as 
justice  to  yourself  and  to  the  cause  of  truth  obviously  require. 
Candidly  overlook  all  such  defects,  as  are  more  or  leas  common 
to  all  human  productions,  and  let  no  such  thing  prevent  a  due 
estimation  of  whatever  there  may  be  of  sound  argument,  or  of 
any  other  useful  matter.  Do  not  be  in  haste  to  counteract 
any  impression,  which  the  letters  may  make  on  the  minds 
of  other  readers,  Take  suflicient  time  to  judge,  as  in  the  cool 
of  the  day,  whether  the  work  is  likely  to  do  any  real  injury  to 
the  cause  of  pure  and  undcfiled  religion. 

If  it  shall  seem  needful  fbr  you  to  take  any  public  notice 
of  what  I  have  written,  I)e  entreated  to  do  yourself  and  the 
cause  of  religion  the  honour  of  writing  in  such  a  spirit  of 
candour,  meekness,  and  gentleness,  as  shall  give  you  no  pain 
in  the  nearest  view  of  death,  judgment,  and  eternity.  Do  not, 
I  beseech  you,  make  use  of  such  weapons,  as  have  too  often 
been  used  in  religious  controversy  to  the  unspeakable  injury 
of  the  christian  cause.  Do  not  sound  an  alarm  against  here- 
sy without  making  it  evident,  that  the  cause  of  truth  and 
righteousness  is  really  in  danger.  Do  not  repeat  the  thread- 
bare arguments  of  Trinitarians,  without  taking  due  notice  of 
what    has    been   said    to    point    out    their    fallacy.       Do    not 


43 

tjvatle  the  arguments  I  have  set  before  you,  on  the  ground  of 
such  mystery,  as  has  no  other  origin  than  in  the  wisdom  of 
men.  Do  not  substitute  your  own  strong  assertions  for  divine 
testimony  ;  do  not  indulge  yourself  in  declamation  instead  of 
producing  sound  arguments  ;  and  do  not  address  the  passions 
and  prejudices  of  rnen  instead  of  offering  light  for  the  under- 
standing. 

If  1  am  in  material  error  as  to  the  main  points,  on  which  I 
have  now  written,  as  not  a  very  few  are  involved  with  me  in 
the  same,  it  is  certainly  of  no  small  importance  that  something 
should  be  done  to  convince  and  reclaim  us.  But,  Sir,  be  as- 
suied,  that  we  are  not  to  be  convinced  and  reclaimed  by  any 
such  measures,  as  have  hitherto  been  adopted.  You  may  con- 
tinue to  publish  such  insinuations,  invectives,  and  aspersions, 
as  have  appeared  in  the  Panopiist.  Others  may  continue 
to  publish  such  things  as  have,  in  various  forms,  and  under 
various  titles,  appeared  against  the  writings  on  our  side.  Small 
associations,  and  general  associations,  may  continue  to  pass 
pointed  resolutions  and  addresses,  and  may  continue  to  send 
them  abroad  extensively  to  warn  the  churches.  The  Trinitariau 
clergy  may  continue  to  embrace  almost  every  favourable  oppor- 
tunity, as  at  the  meetings  of  presbyteries,  associations,  conven- 
tions, and  councils,  to  preach  against  heresy  with  pointed  allusion 
to  our  opinions  and  writings.  Many  of  our  Trinitarian  brethren 
in  the  ministry  may  also  continue  to  pass  by  such  of  us  as  are  in 
the  ministry,  and  continue  to  withhold  from  us  the  right  hand 
of  fellowship.  And  other  things,  such  as  I  am  unwilling  to 
name  may  be  repeated  ;  but  none  of  these  things,  nor  will 
all  these  things,  move  hs  to  relinquish  what  we  believe  to 
be  the  truth,  as  it  is  in  Jesus.  So  long  as  it  shall  appear  to  us, 
that  the  views,  which  we  entertain,  are  supported  by  the 
most  plain  sense,  and  by  the  most  perfect  agreement  of  all 
scripture  ;  and  so  long  as  we  shall  find  not  the  least  occasion 
to  use  any  other  than  the  very  words  of  divine  testimony,  quoted 
in  the  fairest  manner,  to  express  our  viev.'s  with  suflicient  clear- 
ness in  all  our  public  performances,  we  shall,  1  think,  hold 
on,  and  hold  out  in  the  way  we  have  taken,  whether  we  may 
have  less  or  more  to  bear  on  this  account.  Yet  we  by  no 
means  consider  ourselves  infallible.  We  know  that  we  are 
liable  to  misapprehensions  and  mistakes  like  otiier  men.  And 
we  should,  I  tiiink,  take  it  kindly  of  you,  or  any  other  writer, 
to  meet  such  arguments,  as  have  now  been  set  before  you,  in  a 
fair,  candid  manner,  endeavouring  to  point  out  as  clearly  as 
possible  any  such  fallacy  as  may  be  supposed  to  be  in  them. 
And  be  assured,  Sir,  that  this  is  the  only  way,  in  which  you, 
or  any  other  man,  can  do  any  thing  to  set  us  right,  admitting 
that  we  are  in  the  wrong. 


44 

I  sh?ill  now  conclude  by  rccommendinp;  and  urging-  one 
important  question  to  the  very  serious  consideration  of  all 
on  your  side,  to  whose  knowleds^e  it  mav  come.  I'be  ques- 
tion is  this,  Is  it  not  on  the  whole  advisable  for  all  Trin- 
itarians to  discontinue  the  use  of  such  triune  words  and  dox- 
oloeics,  as  are  not  found  in  the  bible  ?  Is  it  not  at  least 
possible,  that  they  may  be  in  no  sn^all  degree  erroneous, 
and  of  very  hurtful  teiidency  ?  Does  not  a  becouiini.^  deference 
for  the  lang-uuge  of  inspiration  absolutely  require  what  I  have 
now  suggested  I  What  good  reason  can  be  given,  why  Trini- 
tarians should  not  as  readily  agree  to  give  up  such  words  and 
doxologies,  as  to  join  with  other  christians  to  send  the  bible 
among  the  destitute  "  ivithout  note  or  connnevt  .?"  How  can 
ihcy  be  consistent  without  acting,  in  both  cuses,  in  like  man- 
ner ?  Even  if  they  continue  to  suppose,  that  there  is  in  the 
bible  all  that  foundation  for  the  triune  faith,  v/hich  has  been 
imagined,  yet  why  is  not  the  language,  Avhich  the  spirit  of 
inspiration  has  taught,  Vac  very  best  that  can  be  used  on  those 
great  points,  whicli  arc  purely  a  matter  of  revelation  f  Why 
should  it  be  ai  y  more  necessary,  or  expedient,  to  use  now, 
any  such  phrase  as  that  of  thiee  persons  in  one  God,  or  any 
such  doxology  as  that  of  glory  to  the  Father,  to  the  Son,  and 
the  Holy  Spirit,  than  it  was  in  the  days  of  ISIoses,  or  in  the 
days  of  after  prophets,  or  in  the  days  of  the  apostles  ?  Was  there 
not  in  regard  to  many  things,  a  great  departure  from  the  simpli- 
city and  purity  of  earlier  periods  of  the  church  about  the  time 
when  the  triune  article  of  faith,  and  the  triune  doxology  were 
"  invented."  Did  not  the  introduction  of  such  innovations 
greatly  operate  to  divide  and  to  distract  the  church  ?  Has  there 
ever  been  such  unity  and  fellowship  among  any  considerable 
number  of  christians  at  any  time,  since  the  introduction  of  such 
human  inventions,  as  there  had  been  before  ?  Is  tljerc  any  rea- 
son to  think,  that  such  desirable  unity,  and  brotherly  kindness, 
and  charity,  as  characterized  the  primitive  church,  will  ever  be 
restored  without  an  entive  ^discontinuance  of  those  things, 
which  have  caused  such  lamentable  schisms,  and  the  most  un- 
christian revilings  ?  Has  it  not  too  much  the  appearance  of 
"will  worship,"  forever  so  large  a  majority  to  insist  on  the 
continuance  of  such  articles  and  forms  of  human  device,  as  are 
extremely  repugnant  to  the  views  and  feelings  of  some,  who 
would  readily  and  glrdly  subscribe  to  all  that  was  required, 
and  could  heartily  join  in  all  such  worship,  as  was  found 
among  christians  in  the  apostolic  age  ?*   And  is  there  the  least 

*  In  the  same  book,  most  largely  quoted  before,  the  autbor  says,  "  I  have  al- 
ready lost  considerable  ineferiuc-tUs  by  refuniiig  to  subscrilie  the  tliirty-iiine  ar- 
ticles again,  to  qualify  myself  for  great  things,   whicli  a  luobt  powerful  and  gen- 


45 

reason  to  expect,  that  union  and  communion  among  all,  who 
iovc  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  sincerity,  will  ever  be  restored, 
until  confessions  of  faith,  forms  of  covenant,  and  modes  of 
worship,  shall  again  be  as  simple,  and  as  much  confined  to 
"  words,  which  the  Holy  Spirit  teacheth,"  as  they  were  in 
those  days,  when  to  their  great  credit  it  was  said,  "Behold, 
how  the  christians  love  one  another  ?''  But  relative  to  the 
same  matter  there  is  another  consideration,  which  I  may 
not  omit.  Is  it  not  undeniable,  that  the  triune  words  and 
forms  in  such  common  use  among  christians,  arc  exceedingly 
in  the  way  to  prevent  the  conversion,  both  of  Mahometans  and 
Jews,  to  Christianity  ?  Do  not  the  vastly  numerous  followers  of 
that  arch  impostor  Mahomet,  with  one  voice  contend  for  the 
unity  of  God  as  but  one  person,  and  very  strongly  object  against 
Christianity  because,  as  they  think,  christians  worship,  and  call 
on  them  to  worship,  more  Gods  than  one  ?  And  do  not  the  less 
numerous,  but  more  unhappy  dispersed  Jews  with  one  voice 
say,  in  respect  to  Trinitarian  phraseology  and  worship,  "  we 
have  no  such  words  or  forms  in  the  writings  of  Moses  and  the 
prophets,  our  fathers  never  worshipped  a  three  one  God.''^ 
If  your  religion  requires  this,  it  cannot  be  from  heaven,  and 
we  never  can  become  christians  I"  Have  pity,  my  Trinitarian 
readers,  have   pity  on  the   many  millions  of  deluded  perishing 


erous  patron  offcretl  me.  The  hoiiestum  is  my  philosopliy  ;  and  love  to  God 
niul  in;in  is  my  reIis;ion.  It'  sacrificing  all  worldly  considerations,  for  acting  ac- 
cording lo  my  inward  persuasion,  is  a  proof  of  imprudence,  1  am  indeed  charge- 
aljlc  villi  it."  p.  188. 

Sir  liichard  Blackstone,  in  liis  preface  to  liis  fine  p(?em  on  Creation,  says, 
•'Whoever  shall  set  about  to  mend  the  world  and  reform  men's  notions  as  well 
as  their  manners,  -will  certainly  be  the  mark  of  much  scandal  and  reproach,  and 
will  effectually  be  convinced,  that,  it  is  possible  that  the  greatest  lovers  and  bene- 
factors of  mankind,  may  be  represented  by  the  multitude,  whose  opinions  they 
contradict,  as  the  worst  of  men.  Ihe  hardy  undertakers,  who  express  their 
xcal  to  rectify  the  sentiments  of  a  prejudiced  people,  in  matters  of  religion,  who 
labour  lo  stem  the  tide  of  popular  error,  and  strike  at  the  foundation  of  any- 
ancient  established  sui)erstition,  must  themselves  ex]>cct  to  be  treated  as  prag- 
maticat  and  insolent  innovators,  disturbers  of  the  public  peace,  and  the  greatest 
enemies  of  religion."  p.  I8'2. 

*'  A  gentleman  of  eminence,  talking  one  day  witli  the  late  1)ishop  of  L — ,  con- 
cerning Dr.  Clarke,  said,  that  he  was  surprised  the  convocation  had  set  themselves 
to  persecute  with  so  much  violence,  a  man,  who  was  an  ornament,  and  an  honour 
to  the  whole  order,  by  his  great  learning  and  sense.  Sense  !  cried  the  bishop, 
indeed  I  think  Dr.  Clark  is  very  deficient  in  that;  for  if  he  had  but  common  sense 
he  would  take  more  care  of  himself.  O  my  lord,  I  understand  you,  (said  the 
gentleman)  but  if  neglecting  a  man's  worldly  interest  proves,  that  he  wants  com- 
mon sense,  1  fear  it  will  be  found  that  the  apostles,  and  our  Lord  himself,  had  no 
great  share  of  it."  p.  212. 

"  Happy  would  it  have  been  for  the  world,  if  men  had  rested  their  inquiries 
about  religion,  where  God  rested  in  his  revelation  of  it.  Only  the  clear  light  of 
truth  can  guide  men  to  virtue.  The  doctrines,  which  ai-e  dark  and  uncertain, 
can  only  lead  men  to  darkness  and  uncertainty.  What  harm  is  it  to  us,  if  fools 
condemn  us  ?  They  have  always,  from  the  beginning  of  the  world,  exclaimed 
most  against  those,  who  would  do  them  the  greatest  good."  p.  135. 
7 


46 

Mahometans  !  Have  pity  also  on  the  scattered,  numerous,  un- 
happy seed  of  Abraham,  that  triend  of  God,  through  whom,  and 
through  Avhose  ofl'sprintr  so  great  blessings  have  come  on  us 
Gentiles.  Have  pity  on  such  perishing  multitudes  of  our 
brethren  of  the  human  family,  and  lay  aside,  I  entreat  you,  such 
controversial  inventions,  as  render  the  everlasting  gospel  in 
their  vienv,  unworthy  of  their  acceptation  ! 


THE    END. 


^i^fi{^ 


'^^"^W^ 


ff-  rti 


